McKnight v. Middleton

Second Circuit

McKnight v. Middleton

434 F. App'x 32

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 2011

Docket10-1664-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by60 cases

This text of 434 F. App'x 32 (McKnight v. Middleton) 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

McKnight v. Middleton, 434 F. App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Jerome McKnight appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The 130-page Amended Complaint asserted 72 claims against defendants-appellees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and federal and state wiretapping law, and for unlawful interference with his rights under a custody agreement, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

We have conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles. We affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order.

We have reviewed McKnight’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

*34 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Jerome McKnight appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The 130-page Amended Complaint asserted 72 claims against defendants-appellees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and federal and state wiretapping law, and for unlawful interference with his rights under a custody agreement, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

We have conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles. We affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order.

We have reviewed McKnight’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

*34 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F. App'x 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-middleton-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack