Johnson v. United States

Second Circuit

Johnson v. United States

81 F. App'x 388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2003

DocketNo. 03-6054

StatusPublished

This text of 81 F. App'x 388 (Johnson v. United States) 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. United States, 81 F. App'x 388 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey Johnson, an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), brought a series of claims against the United States and individual defendants, alleging various employment abuses. The essence of Johnson’s action is that IRS officials maliciously denied him two promotions that he believes to be mandatory. With respect to his statutory and common law claims, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. And to the extent that there are claims of a constitutional nature embedded in his complaint, Johnson has failed, even under the liberal pleading standards set forth in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), to state a valid constitutional claim. See Tiltti v. Weise, 155 F.3d 596, 602 (2d Cir.1998). Finally, the district court properly denied Johnson’s motion for a default judgment. We have considered all of appellant’s claims and find them to be meritless. 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

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey Johnson, an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), brought a series of claims against the United States and individual defendants, alleging various employment abuses. The essence of Johnson’s action is that IRS officials maliciously denied him two promotions that he believes to be mandatory. With respect to his statutory and common law claims, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. And to the extent that there are claims of a constitutional nature embedded in his complaint, Johnson has failed, even under the liberal pleading standards set forth in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), to state a valid constitutional claim. See Tiltti v. Weise, 155 F.3d 596, 602 (2d Cir.1998). Finally, the district court properly denied Johnson’s motion for a default judgment. We have considered all of appellant’s claims and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. App'x 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack