Percesepe v. DeVita

Second Circuit

Percesepe v. DeVita

81 F. App'x 378

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 21, 2003·No. Docket Nos. 02-7935(L), 02-9074(CON)·Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

This appeal involves two of several serial lawsuits stemming from the New York State Department of Labor’s denial of Edward Percesepe’s 1994 application for a crane operator’s license. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. E.g., Belliveau v. Stevenson, 123 F.3d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1997). In docket number 02-7935, dismissal is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), e.g., United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir.1992), and imposition of an injunction limiting a litigant’s future access to the courts, e.g., Abdullah v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1985). We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s indulgent consideration of Percesepe’s lawsuits.

[379] As to docket number 02-9074, we affirm dismissal per the stipulation that conceded dismissal of this lawsuit if docket number 02-7935 is dismissed.

The judgments of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

This appeal involves two of several serial lawsuits stemming from the New York State Department of Labor’s denial of Edward Percesepe’s 1994 application for a crane operator’s license. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. E.g., Belliveau v. Stevenson, 123 F.3d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1997). In docket number 02-7935, dismissal is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), e.g., United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir.1992), and imposition of an injunction limiting a litigant’s future access to the courts, e.g., Abdullah v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1985). We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s indulgent consideration of Percesepe’s lawsuits.

[379] As to docket number 02-9074, we affirm dismissal per the stipulation that conceded dismissal of this lawsuit if docket number 02-7935 is dismissed.

The judgments of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.

Percesepe v. DeVita, 81 F. App'x 378 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

81 F. App'x 378 (Percesepe v. DeVita) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related