Kalwasinski v. Graham

Second Circuit

Kalwasinski v. Graham

53 F. App'x 168

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2002

DocketDocket No. 02-0016

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. App'x 168 (Kalwasinski v. Graham) 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

Kalwasinski v. Graham, 53 F. App'x 168 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant Mitchell Kalwasinski appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) denying a motion to reopen the case. On December 5, 2001, the court entered a Stipulation and Order of Discontinuance executed by the parties pursuant to which Kalwasinski agreed to settle the case for $500. Kalwasinski moved to reopen the case and to set aside the stipulation and order on the ground that his lawyer entered into the settlement without authority. The district court denied the motion and we affirm that denial.

Kalwasinski also claims that the district court improperly dismissed his Fourth Amendment claim. We affirm the dismissal of that claim substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

For the reasons set forth above, 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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant Mitchell Kalwasinski appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) denying a motion to reopen the case. On December 5, 2001, the court entered a Stipulation and Order of Discontinuance executed by the parties pursuant to which Kalwasinski agreed to settle the case for $500. Kalwasinski moved to reopen the case and to set aside the stipulation and order on the ground that his lawyer entered into the settlement without authority. The district court denied the motion and we affirm that denial.

Kalwasinski also claims that the district court improperly dismissed his Fourth Amendment claim. We affirm the dismissal of that claim substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalwasinski-v-graham-ca2-2002.