Conley v. Pylman

Second Circuit

Conley v. Pylman

121 F. App'x 926

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2713

StatusPublished

This text of 121 F. App'x 926 (Conley v. Pylman) 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

Conley v. Pylman, 121 F. App'x 926 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff, Steven Conley, appeals from a final judgment granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleges due process and equal protection violations stemming from the termination of his employment as an investigator for the Utica Police Department through an arbitration proceeding, and seeks redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The facts of this case, which demonstrate that an impartial arbitrator held a three-day hearing on the charges against plaintiff before the termination, and that the arbitrator’s decision was upheld by the New York Supreme Court, indicate that plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to respond. We can see no basis for plaintiffs claim that his due process rights were violated.

We reject plaintiffs equal protection claim for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum-Decision and Order of April 6, 2004. Conley v. Pylman, 5:03-CV-1293 (DNH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2004).

[927]*927We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and have found them to be without merit. We hereby 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

Plaintiff, Steven Conley, appeals from a final judgment granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleges due process and equal protection violations stemming from the termination of his employment as an investigator for the Utica Police Department through an arbitration proceeding, and seeks redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The facts of this case, which demonstrate that an impartial arbitrator held a three-day hearing on the charges against plaintiff before the termination, and that the arbitrator’s decision was upheld by the New York Supreme Court, indicate that plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to respond. We can see no basis for plaintiffs claim that his due process rights were violated.

We reject plaintiffs equal protection claim for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum-Decision and Order of April 6, 2004. Conley v. Pylman, 5:03-CV-1293 (DNH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2004).

[927]*927We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and have found them to be without merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. App'x 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-v-pylman-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack