Jones v. Barnhart

Second Circuit

Jones v. Barnhart

96 F. App'x 786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-6113

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 786 (Jones v. Barnhart) 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

Jones v. Barnhart, 96 F. App'x 786 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Laurence C. Jones, Jr. appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his claim that he was denied reinstatement or appointment to competitive federal service in violation of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944. The District Court, accepting the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel, granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over Jones’ claim, and (2) Jones failed to state a claim under the Veterans Preference Act upon which relief could be granted.

For substantially the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Garfinkel’s Recommended Ruling, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby 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 Laurence C. Jones, Jr. appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his claim that he was denied reinstatement or appointment to competitive federal service in violation of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944. The District Court, accepting the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel, granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over Jones’ claim, and (2) Jones failed to state a claim under the Veterans Preference Act upon which relief could be granted.

For substantially the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Garfinkel’s Recommended Ruling, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-barnhart-ca2-2004.