Rosquist v. Keyspan Energy Delivery New York

Second Circuit

Rosquist v. Keyspan Energy Delivery New York

120 F. App'x 405

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 2005

DocketNo. 04-3113

StatusPublished

This text of 120 F. App'x 405 (Rosquist v. Keyspan Energy Delivery 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

Rosquist v. Keyspan Energy Delivery New York, 120 F. App'x 405 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

George Rosquist appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.) on April 13, 2004, which dismissed Rosquist’s complaint for failure to prosecute. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of the issues on appeal.

Upon an independent evaluation of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rosquist’s claim for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir.2001). We review de novo the decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir.1998). For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, dismissal was appropriate.

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

George Rosquist appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.) on April 13, 2004, which dismissed Rosquist’s complaint for failure to prosecute. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of the issues on appeal.

Upon an independent evaluation of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rosquist’s claim for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir.2001). We review de novo the decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir.1998). For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, dismissal was appropriate.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. App'x 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosquist-v-keyspan-energy-delivery-new-york-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack