Hernandez v. City of Rochester

Second Circuit

Hernandez v. City of Rochester

86 F. App'x 460

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

DocketNo. 02-9083

StatusPublished

This text of 86 F. App'x 460 (Hernandez v. City of Rochester) 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

Hernandez v. City of Rochester, 86 F. App'x 460 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se Plaintiffs-Appellants Myrtha and Hiram Hernandez appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.) entered pursuant to a Decision and Order dated July 11, 2002, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999).

For the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion, we affirm. 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

Pro se Plaintiffs-Appellants Myrtha and Hiram Hernandez appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.) entered pursuant to a Decision and Order dated July 11, 2002, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999).

For the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion, we affirm. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. App'x 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-city-of-rochester-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack