Cox v. Malone

56 F. App'x 43
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 2003
DocketDocket No. 02-161
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 56 F. App'x 43 (Cox v. Malone) 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
Cox v. Malone, 56 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2003).

Opinion

[44]*44SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Keith Thomas Cox appeals from the April 26, 2002 judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees and dismissing Cox’s complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment for excessive use of force during a pat down frisk and a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in connection with a disciplinary hearing. On appeal, Cox argues that the district court erred in (1) dismissing Cox’s Due Process claim on the ground that Cox waived it by failing to reiterate his request to have Simms testify when Hornbeck, the hearing officer, asked Cox if he had any procedural objections before she closed the hearing and Cox responded in the negative; (2) granting summary judgment before considering Cox’s motion for appointment of counsel; and (3) holding that Cox had failed to show malicious intent on the part of Simms or anything more than de minimis physical injury in connection with his Eighth Amendment claim, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). We have carefully considered all of Cox’s arguments and find them to lack merit for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion, see Cox v. Malone, 199 F.Supp.2d 135 (S.D.N.Y.2002).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Tripathy v. Lockwood
W.D. New York, 2024
Gunn v. Malani
S.D. New York, 2023
Jasmin v. Maccarone, PC
E.D. New York, 2022
Braithwaite v. Gaitman, Esq.
E.D. New York, 2022
Colon v. Tellez
E.D. New York, 2022
Chavez v. Gutwein
S.D. New York, 2021
Cano v. City of New York
44 F. Supp. 3d 324 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Lloyd v. City of New York
43 F. Supp. 3d 254 (S.D. New York, 2014)
McBean v. City of New York
260 F.R.D. 120 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Lipton v. County of Orange, NY
315 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D. New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 F. App'x 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-malone-ca2-2003.