Johnson v. Blood

Second Circuit

Johnson v. Blood

138 F. App'x 361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2005

DocketDocket No. 03-0134-PR

StatusPublished

This text of 138 F. App'x 361 (Johnson v. Blood) 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

Johnson v. Blood, 138 F. App'x 361 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Johnathan Johnson filed suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several officials employed by the Great Meadow Correctional Facility, including defendant-appellee C. Blood. He now appeals several rulings made by the district court (Scullin, J.) in the course of a jury trial on Johnson’s claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Johnson’s evidentiary claims are unavailing, as the purported “errors” were made by Johnson’s trial counsel, and not the court. See Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 396-97, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). As to Johnson’s other claims, we affirm for substantially the reasons expressed by the district court.

We have considered all of Johnson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 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

Plaintiff-appellant Johnathan Johnson filed suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several officials employed by the Great Meadow Correctional Facility, including defendant-appellee C. Blood. He now appeals several rulings made by the district court (Scullin, J.) in the course of a jury trial on Johnson’s claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Johnson’s evidentiary claims are unavailing, as the purported “errors” were made by Johnson’s trial counsel, and not the court. See Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 396-97, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). As to Johnson’s other claims, we affirm for substantially the reasons expressed by the district court.

We have considered all of Johnson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. App'x 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-blood-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack