Cates v. Potter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2010
• Docket: 09-2572
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

09-2572-cv Cates v. Potter

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 5 th day of February, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 Circuit Judges, 10 JOHN GLEESON, * 11 District Judge. 12 __________________________________________ 13 14 Elliot Ulysses Cates, 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant, 17 18 v. 09-2572-cv 19 20 John Potter, Postmaster General, Cheryl 21 Williams, Vanessa Duncan-Smith, 22 Toniette Henry, 23 24 Defendants-Appellees. 25 __________________________________________ 26

* The Honorable John Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: J ARED K NEITEL, New York, NY. 2 3 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Assistant United States 4 Attorney C AROLINA A. F ORNOS 5 (David S. Jones, Assistant 6 United States Attorney, on 7 the brief) for Preet 8 Bharara, United States 9 Attorney for the Southern 10 District of New York, New 11 York, NY. 12 13 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 14 Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.) 15 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 17 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 18 AFFIRMED. 19 20 Appellant Elliot Ulysses Cates (“Cates”) appeals the

21 district court’s grant of Appellees’ Federal Rule of Civil

22 Procedure 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing his complaint alleging

23 violations of the Due Process Clause, Title VII of the Civil

24 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the

25 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., as well as

26 claims for defamation and breach of contract. We assume the

27 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the

28 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

29 We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint

30 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, “construing the complaint

31 liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the

32 complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in

2 1 the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282

2 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the

3 record confirms that the district court properly granted the

4 motion to dismiss. We affirm that court’s judgment for

5 substantially the same reasons as articulated in that

6 court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

7 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

8 court is hereby AFFIRMED. 9 10 11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13