Gugliara v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Gugliara v. City of New York

126 F. App'x 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 2005

DocketNo. 04-4851-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 126 F. App'x 40 (Gugliara v. City of New York) 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

Gugliara v. City of New York, 126 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Gugliara (“Gugliara”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that actions by the Defendants-Appellees violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed Gugliara’s complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C), due to Gugliara’s repeated failure to appear for noticed depositions. The court’s decision, which adopted the thorough report of Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, concluded that Gugliara, despite numerous extensions and explicit warnings that unexplained absence from scheduled depositions would result in dismissal of his case, continued in his noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders.

We affirm dismissal of Gugliara’s complaint substantially for the reasons given by the district court. We have considered all of Gugliara’s contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we 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

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Gugliara (“Gugliara”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that actions by the Defendants-Appellees violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed Gugliara’s complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C), due to Gugliara’s repeated failure to appear for noticed depositions. The court’s decision, which adopted the thorough report of Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, concluded that Gugliara, despite numerous extensions and explicit warnings that unexplained absence from scheduled depositions would result in dismissal of his case, continued in his noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders.

We affirm dismissal of Gugliara’s complaint substantially for the reasons given by the district court. We have considered all of Gugliara’s contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. App'x 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gugliara-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack