Preacely v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Preacely v. City of New York

531 F. App'x 173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 2013

DocketNo. 12-3061-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 531 F. App'x 173 (Preacely v. City of New York) 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

Preacely v. City of New York, 531 F. App'x 173 (2d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Woodrow Wilson Preacely, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint on Rule 8 grounds for an abuse of discretion. Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir.1995). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Preacely’s claims. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 12, 2012 decision.

We have considered all of Preacely’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we 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

Appellant Woodrow Wilson Preacely, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint on Rule 8 grounds for an abuse of discretion. Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir.1995). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Preacely’s claims. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 12, 2012 decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 F. App'x 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preacely-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack