Drake v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Second Circuit

Drake v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

417 F. App'x 84

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 2011

Docket10-1418-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 417 F. App'x 84 (Drake v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings) 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

Drake v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 417 F. App'x 84 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Richard W. Drake, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint alleging that the defendants provided false drug test results to his employer. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating that it exists. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994). We review orders granting summary judgment de novo to determine whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we find, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, that Drake failed to establish facts supporting the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants-Appellees Kevin Wilson, Elsohly Laboratories, Inc., William H. Whaley, and West Paces Ferry Medical Clinic. We further conclude, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, that Drake’s claims against Defendants-Appellees Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Northwest Toxicology, Inc., and David J. Kuntz are barred by the statute of limitations.

We have considered Drake’s other arguments on appeal and, although we are fully aware of his sense of grievance, have found them to be without legal merit. We reject Drake’s invitation to reconsider our holding in Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 147 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.1998). We may not disregard the decision of a prior panel, except in special circumstances not present here. See Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Emps. v. INS, 336 F.3d 200, 210 (2d Cir.2003). 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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Richard W. Drake, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint alleging that the defendants provided false drug test results to his employer. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating that it exists. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994). We review orders granting summary judgment de novo to determine whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we find, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, that Drake failed to establish facts supporting the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants-Appellees Kevin Wilson, Elsohly Laboratories, Inc., William H. Whaley, and West Paces Ferry Medical Clinic. We further conclude, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, that Drake’s claims against Defendants-Appellees Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Northwest Toxicology, Inc., and David J. Kuntz are barred by the statute of limitations.

We have considered Drake’s other arguments on appeal and, although we are fully aware of his sense of grievance, have found them to be without legal merit. We reject Drake’s invitation to reconsider our holding in Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 147 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.1998). We may not disregard the decision of a prior panel, except in special circumstances not present here. See Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Emps. v. INS, 336 F.3d 200, 210 (2d Cir.2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. App'x 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drake-v-laboratory-corporation-of-america-holdings-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack