Bender v. Lowe
This text of 531 F. App'x 142 (Bender v. Lowe) 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.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
Sherry Bender appeals pro se from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants R. Sandlin Lowe III, Michael Adam Ciranni, and Matthew Seth Holden, psychiatrists at New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation at Bellevue Hospital, on her claims that defendants violated her constitutional rights and committed medical malpractice by involuntarily admitting her to Bellevue’s psychiatric unit on March 8, 2006, and March 15, 2006. *143 We review an award of summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-movant, and we will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir.2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that Bender’s appeal is without merit for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its comprehensive Memorandum and Order entered August 31, 2011. We have considered all of Bender’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
531 F. App'x 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bender-v-lowe-ca2-2013.