Preston v. Quinn

Second Circuit

Preston v. Quinn

87 F. App'x 221

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 2004

DocketNo. 02-0362

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 F. App'x 221 (Preston v. Quinn) 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

Preston v. Quinn, 87 F. App'x 221 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Oscar Preston, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, /.), dismissing his various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. (N.B.: The caption does not accurately reflect the parties to this appeal.)

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b), e.g., Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 or 1915A, Marvin v. Goord, 255 F.3d 40, 42 (2d Cir.2001).

For the reasons substantially stated by the district court, it properly dismissed Preston’s lawsuit. In addition, dismissal of Preston’s § 1983 claims against Matos and White was proper because they possessed qualified immunity under federal law as well as state law. Specifically, Matos and White did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

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

Oscar Preston, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, /.), dismissing his various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. (N.B.: The caption does not accurately reflect the parties to this appeal.)

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b), e.g., Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 or 1915A, Marvin v. Goord, 255 F.3d 40, 42 (2d Cir.2001).

For the reasons substantially stated by the district court, it properly dismissed Preston’s lawsuit. In addition, dismissal of Preston’s § 1983 claims against Matos and White was proper because they possessed qualified immunity under federal law as well as state law. Specifically, Matos and White did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. App'x 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-quinn-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack