Sash v. Doe 5 to Doe 25

Second Circuit

Sash v. Doe 5 to Doe 25

308 F. App'x 562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2009

DocketNo. 07-4586-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 308 F. App'x 562 (Sash v. Doe 5 to Doe 25) 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

Sash v. Doe 5 to Doe 25, 308 F. App'x 562 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Eliot Sash appeals an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Vitaliano, J.) dismissing his various tort and Bivens claims. The allegations in the complaint relate to Sash’s incarceration in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in May and June 2004. Sash alleges principally that the named and unnamed defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his prescribed medications, and that as a result he suffered serious physical injury. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Having reviewed Sash’s arguments on appeal, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Eliot Sash appeals an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Vitaliano, J.) dismissing his various tort and Bivens claims. The allegations in the complaint relate to Sash’s incarceration in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in May and June 2004. Sash alleges principally that the named and unnamed defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his prescribed medications, and that as a result he suffered serious physical injury. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Having reviewed Sash’s arguments on appeal, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 F. App'x 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sash-v-doe-5-to-doe-25-ca2-2009.