Nuraldin v. Colucci

Second Circuit

Nuraldin v. Colucci

373 F. App'x 111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2010

DocketNo. 08-2829-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 373 F. App'x 111 (Nuraldin v. Colucci) 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

Nuraldin v. Colucci, 373 F. App'x 111 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Yusuf J. Nuraldin, pro se, appeals from the district court’s May 22, 2008 post-judgment order denying his motion “to amend or make additional findings” and “for reconsideration of judgment and modification or clarification of’ the district court’s February 15, 2008 order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. Upon due consideration of the district court record and the parties’ submissions, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir.1998); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).

For the foregoing reasons, the order 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

Appellant Yusuf J. Nuraldin, pro se, appeals from the district court’s May 22, 2008 post-judgment order denying his motion “to amend or make additional findings” and “for reconsideration of judgment and modification or clarification of’ the district court’s February 15, 2008 order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. Upon due consideration of the district court record and the parties’ submissions, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir.1998); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 F. App'x 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuraldin-v-colucci-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack