Rodriguez v. McElroy

Second Circuit

Rodriguez v. McElroy

124 F. App'x 702

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-0618-PR

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. App'x 702 (Rodriguez v. McElroy) 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

Rodriguez v. McElroy, 124 F. App'x 702 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Carlos Rodriguez appeals from a December 31, 2003 order of the district court dismissing his due process claims on summary judgment. Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

Defendants failed to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). Therefore the district court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that ground. See Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir.1987). However, we still affirm the judgment because each of Rodriguez’s claims are meritless. See Boy Scouts of Am. v. Wyman, 335 F.3d 80, 90 (2d Cir.2003) (“we may affirm the judgment of the district court on any ground appearing in the record”).

For the reasons set forth above, 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

Carlos Rodriguez appeals from a December 31, 2003 order of the district court dismissing his due process claims on summary judgment. Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

Defendants failed to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their answer. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). Therefore the district court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that ground. See Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir.1987). However, we still affirm the judgment because each of Rodriguez’s claims are meritless. See Boy Scouts of Am. v. Wyman, 335 F.3d 80, 90 (2d Cir.2003) (“we may affirm the judgment of the district court on any ground appearing in the record”).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. App'x 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-mcelroy-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack