McPherson v. Hotel Plaza Athenee

Second Circuit

McPherson v. Hotel Plaza Athenee

538 F. App'x 109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 2013

DocketNo. 12-3947

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 538 F. App'x 109 (McPherson v. Hotel Plaza Athenee) 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

McPherson v. Hotel Plaza Athenee, 538 F. App'x 109 (2d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Racquel McPherson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her complaint and granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant-appellees. She has also filed a motion for “Reversal of the Verdict by the District Court.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

McPherson has not raised any substantive challenge to the district court’s legal analysis. She has therefore forfeited any such challenge. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995). In any event, her claims must fail for the reasons articulated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered all of McPherson’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we DENY McPherson’s motion and 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 Racquel McPherson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her complaint and granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant-appellees. She has also filed a motion for “Reversal of the Verdict by the District Court.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

McPherson has not raised any substantive challenge to the district court’s legal analysis. She has therefore forfeited any such challenge. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995). In any event, her claims must fail for the reasons articulated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered all of McPherson’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we DENY McPherson’s motion and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 F. App'x 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcpherson-v-hotel-plaza-athenee-ca2-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack