Bosshold v. Vlieg

Second Circuit

Bosshold v. Vlieg

114 F. App'x 46

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 2004

DocketNo. 04-0378

StatusPublished

This text of 114 F. App'x 46 (Bosshold v. Vlieg) 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

Bosshold v. Vlieg, 114 F. App'x 46 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Barry L. Bosshold appeals from an order of December 4, 2003 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge), dismissing his complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Familiarity with the facts and procedural background is assumed. We affirm.

On appeal, Bosshold challenges the district court’s conclusions that (1) his claims [47]*47were time-barred, and (2) in any event, he had failed to state a claim. Both arguments are without merit. First, all of Bosshold’s claims were time-barred, see Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir.1994); Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir.1993). Second, even if his claims were not time-barred, they were not sufficiently alleged. Bosshold does not allege actual injury as to his First Amendment claim. See Colombo v. O’Connell, 310 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir.2002). His allegations of harassment and “false allegations” do not constitute cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983. See Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 n. 7 (2d Cir.1973), overruled on other grounds, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Finally, Bosshold fails to allege class-based discriminatory animus. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Mian, 7 F.3d at 1087. His complaint was therefore properly dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Barry L. Bosshold appeals from an order of December 4, 2003 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge), dismissing his complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Familiarity with the facts and procedural background is assumed. We affirm.

On appeal, Bosshold challenges the district court’s conclusions that (1) his claims [47]*47were time-barred, and (2) in any event, he had failed to state a claim. Both arguments are without merit. First, all of Bosshold’s claims were time-barred, see Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir.1994); Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir.1993). Second, even if his claims were not time-barred, they were not sufficiently alleged. Bosshold does not allege actual injury as to his First Amendment claim. See Colombo v. O’Connell, 310 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir.2002). His allegations of harassment and “false allegations” do not constitute cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983. See Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 n. 7 (2d Cir.1973), overruled on other grounds, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Finally, Bosshold fails to allege class-based discriminatory animus. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Mian, 7 F.3d at 1087. His complaint was therefore properly dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. App'x 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosshold-v-vlieg-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack