Cartey v. City University of New York

Second Circuit

Cartey v. City University of New York

379 F. App'x 29

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 2010

DocketNo. 09-3391-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 379 F. App'x 29 (Cartey v. City University 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

Cartey v. City University of New York, 379 F. App'x 29 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Samuel Ernest Cartey appeals from the June 29, 2009 judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the Teachers’ Retirement Sjrstem of the City of New York is exempt from the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We have reviewed plaintiffs claim and find it to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton in his careful and thoughtful report and recommendation of March 18, 2009, see Cartey v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 08 Civ. 1608 (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2009), which the District Court adopted, see Cartey v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 08 Civ. 1608 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009), the June 29, 2009 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Samuel Ernest Cartey appeals from the June 29, 2009 judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the Teachers’ Retirement Sjrstem of the City of New York is exempt from the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We have reviewed plaintiffs claim and find it to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton in his careful and thoughtful report and recommendation of March 18, 2009, see Cartey v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 08 Civ. 1608 (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2009), which the District Court adopted, see Cartey v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 08 Civ. 1608 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009), the June 29, 2009 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 F. App'x 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cartey-v-city-university-of-new-york-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack