De Carlo v. Ratner

Second Circuit

De Carlo v. Ratner

53 F. App'x 161

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

DocketNo. 02-7655

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 F. App'x 161 (De Carlo v. Ratner) 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

De Carlo v. Ratner, 53 F. App'x 161 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of the District Court (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge), entered on May 6, 2002, dismiss[162]*162ing plaintiffs attorney-malpractice, breach of contract, fraud, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 civil rights claims. The District Court held that plaintiffs malpractice, contract, and civil rights claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiffs fraud claim failed, for several reasons, to state a claim on which relief could be granted. De Carlo v. Ratner, 204 F.Supp.2d 630 (S.D.N.Y.2002). For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its comprehensive opinion of April 30, 2002, id., we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs claims.

We have reviewed all of the plaintiffs pro se arguments. For the reasons set forth above, the 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

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

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of the District Court (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge), entered on May 6, 2002, dismiss[162]*162ing plaintiffs attorney-malpractice, breach of contract, fraud, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 civil rights claims. The District Court held that plaintiffs malpractice, contract, and civil rights claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiffs fraud claim failed, for several reasons, to state a claim on which relief could be granted. De Carlo v. Ratner, 204 F.Supp.2d 630 (S.D.N.Y.2002). For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its comprehensive opinion of April 30, 2002, id., we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs claims.

We have reviewed all of the plaintiffs pro se arguments. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-carlo-v-ratner-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack