Butler v. Hogue

Second Circuit

Butler v. Hogue

434 F. App'x 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 2011

Docket10-4307-pr

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 434 F. App'x 36 (Butler v. Hogue) 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

Butler v. Hogue, 434 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Keith Terrell Butler appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Butler’s constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo, determining whether the district court properly concluded “that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In making this determination, “the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. The inferences to be drawn from the underlying affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir.1995)). ’

We have reviewed Butler’s claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and, like the district court, conclude that the alleged violations do not rise to the level of constitutional deprivations.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Keith Terrell Butler appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Butler’s constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo, determining whether the district court properly concluded “that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In making this determination, “the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. The inferences to be drawn from the underlying affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir.1995)). ’

We have reviewed Butler’s claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and, like the district court, conclude that the alleged violations do not rise to the level of constitutional deprivations.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F. App'x 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-hogue-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack