Barletta v. McCormack

Second Circuit

Barletta v. McCormack

563 F. App'x 27

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2014

Docket13-951-cr

StatusUnpublished

This text of 563 F. App'x 27 (Barletta v. McCormack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barletta v. McCormack, 563 F. App'x 27 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant John Barletta, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.) dismissing his amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That amended complaint, brought primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks relief for numerous alleged violations of Barletta’s constitutional rights and federal and state law. The district court determined that all of Barletta’s claims were either moot, barred by qualified immunity, or otherwise meritless as a matter of law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.2004), and Rule 12(b)(6), Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

We have considered the arguments that Barletta raises on appeal, and have independently reviewed the record and the relevant case law. We find no merit in Barietta’s arguments and no error in the district court’s decision. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant John Barletta, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.) dismissing his amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That amended complaint, brought primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks relief for numerous alleged violations of Barletta’s constitutional rights and federal and state law. The district court determined that all of Barletta’s claims were either moot, barred by qualified immunity, or otherwise meritless as a matter of law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.2004), and Rule 12(b)(6), Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

We have considered the arguments that Barletta raises on appeal, and have independently reviewed the record and the relevant case law. We find no merit in Barietta’s arguments and no error in the district court’s decision. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 F. App'x 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barletta-v-mccormack-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack