Johnson v. Hannah

Second Circuit

Johnson v. Hannah

218 F. App'x 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 06-1619-pr

StatusPublished

This text of 218 F. App'x 36 (Johnson v. Hannah) 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. Hannah, 218 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Jonathan Johnson pro se appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against his Amended Complaint, which was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants-ap-pellees Correction Officer Coleman, Correction Officer Jayne, Sergeant Frost, Sergeant Hannah, and several unknown defendants-appellees. Johnson v. Hannah, 421 F.Supp.2d 604 (W.D.N.Y.2006). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

[37]*37We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Salovaara, 326 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2003). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 626 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its opinion. We have carefully considered all of Johnson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Jonathan Johnson pro se appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against his Amended Complaint, which was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants-ap-pellees Correction Officer Coleman, Correction Officer Jayne, Sergeant Frost, Sergeant Hannah, and several unknown defendants-appellees. Johnson v. Hannah, 421 F.Supp.2d 604 (W.D.N.Y.2006). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

[37]*37We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Salovaara, 326 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2003). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 626 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its opinion. We have carefully considered all of Johnson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. App'x 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-hannah-ca2-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack