Bullock v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Bullock v. City of New York

124 F. App'x 68

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2146PR

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. App'x 68 (Bullock v. City of New York) 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

Bullock v. City of New York, 124 F. App'x 68 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant David Bullock, pro se, appeals from a judgment entered on April 12, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, J.), granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the issues on appeal.

1. Any insufficiency in the notice given by the district court to Bullock as to the nature or consequences of defendants-appellees’ summary judgment motion does not warrant reversal. See Sawyer v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, 180 F.3d 31, 35-36 (2d Cir.1999) (no reversal where “it is reasonably apparent that the litigant understood the nature of the adversary’s summary judgment motion and the consequences of not properly opposing it”).

2. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is 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 be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant David Bullock, pro se, appeals from a judgment entered on April 12, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, J.), granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the issues on appeal.

1. Any insufficiency in the notice given by the district court to Bullock as to the nature or consequences of defendants-appellees’ summary judgment motion does not warrant reversal. See Sawyer v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, 180 F.3d 31, 35-36 (2d Cir.1999) (no reversal where “it is reasonably apparent that the litigant understood the nature of the adversary’s summary judgment motion and the consequences of not properly opposing it”).

2. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. App'x 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack