Miller v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Second Circuit

Miller v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

198 F. App'x 87

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5573-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 F. App'x 87 (Miller v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Miller v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 198 F. App'x 87 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Eddie L. Miller, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (P. Kevin Castel, J.) granting the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment in his action alleging employment discrimination and fraud. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court. All of Miller’s employment discrimination claims were either time-barred, see Elmenayer v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 318 F.3d 130, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2003), or failed to demonstrate that the City had made any employment decisions based on his race or protected activity, see Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377-78 (2d Cir.2003) (explaining that plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination). Additionally, Miller’s fraud claim was asserted well past the applicable statute of limitations. See N.Y. Unconsol. § 7401(2).

We have considered all of Miller’s arguments and found them unavailing. Accordingly, and 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 Eddie L. Miller, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (P. Kevin Castel, J.) granting the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment in his action alleging employment discrimination and fraud. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court. All of Miller’s employment discrimination claims were either time-barred, see Elmenayer v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 318 F.3d 130, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2003), or failed to demonstrate that the City had made any employment decisions based on his race or protected activity, see Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377-78 (2d Cir.2003) (explaining that plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination). Additionally, Miller’s fraud claim was asserted well past the applicable statute of limitations. See N.Y. Unconsol. § 7401(2).

We have considered all of Miller’s arguments and found them unavailing. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F. App'x 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack