Hernandez v. Johnson

Second Circuit

Hernandez v. Johnson

111 F. App'x 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1998

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 648 (Hernandez v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 111 F. App'x 648 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Lorgio Hernandez, proceeding pro se, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Police Officer Oscar Johnson subjected him to excessive force on September 21, 1997. On defendants’ motion, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. See Hernandez v. Johnson, CV 03-2413 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2004). Plaintiff appeals from that order.

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum and Order dated March 16, 2004.

>J{ t'fi Hí ^ ^ *

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

Plaintiff Lorgio Hernandez, proceeding pro se, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Police Officer Oscar Johnson subjected him to excessive force on September 21, 1997. On defendants’ motion, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. See Hernandez v. Johnson, CV 03-2413 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2004). Plaintiff appeals from that order.

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum and Order dated March 16, 2004.

>J{ t'fi Hí ^ ^ *

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-johnson-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack