Perrelli v. Zales Jewelry Store Co.

Second Circuit

Perrelli v. Zales Jewelry Store Co.

45 F. App'x 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2002

DocketDocket No. 02-7343

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. App'x 36 (Perrelli v. Zales Jewelry Store Co.) 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

Perrelli v. Zales Jewelry Store Co., 45 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Frank Perrelli appeals the district court’s (Thompson, J.) dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of his suit against Zales Jewelry Co. (“Zales”). Mr. Perrelli claims violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Mr. Perrelli main[37]*37tains that Zales had a duty to provide him with a free appraisal, which it refused to perform. We have examined the record and find that Mr. Perrelli does not allege any fact indicating that Zales’ actions were motivated by Mr. Perrelli’s asserted disability or otherwise implicating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, Mr. Perrelli fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. While it is possible that Mr. Perrelli may have been wronged, he does not allege a wrong that has a remedy under federal law. We have considered all of Mr. Perelli’s claims and find them meritless. We therefore 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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Frank Perrelli appeals the district court’s (Thompson, J.) dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of his suit against Zales Jewelry Co. (“Zales”). Mr. Perrelli claims violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Mr. Perrelli main[37]*37tains that Zales had a duty to provide him with a free appraisal, which it refused to perform. We have examined the record and find that Mr. Perrelli does not allege any fact indicating that Zales’ actions were motivated by Mr. Perrelli’s asserted disability or otherwise implicating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, Mr. Perrelli fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. While it is possible that Mr. Perrelli may have been wronged, he does not allege a wrong that has a remedy under federal law. We have considered all of Mr. Perelli’s claims and find them meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. App'x 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrelli-v-zales-jewelry-store-co-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack