Burns v. Bank of America

Second Circuit

Burns v. Bank of America

115 F. App'x 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

DocketDocket No. 04-0061

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 F. App'x 105 (Burns v. Bank of America) 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

Burns v. Bank of America, 115 F. App'x 105 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

The district court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for substantially the reasons it articulated in its order, see Burns v. Bank of America, No. 03 Civ. 1685, 2003 WL 22990065, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22799 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.18, 2003), but we think it prudent to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a); Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999) (“ ‘[A] pro se complaint is to be read liberally,’ and should not be dismissed without granting leave to amend at least once when such a reading ‘gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.’” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

The district court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for substantially the reasons it articulated in its order, see Burns v. Bank of America, No. 03 Civ. 1685, 2003 WL 22990065, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22799 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.18, 2003), but we think it prudent to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a); Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999) (“ ‘[A] pro se complaint is to be read liberally,’ and should not be dismissed without granting leave to amend at least once when such a reading ‘gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.’” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-bank-of-america-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack