Schiffer v. Village of Hastings-On-Hudson

Second Circuit

Schiffer v. Village of Hastings-On-Hudson

29 F. App'x 776

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-7687

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 F. App'x 776 (Schiffer v. Village of Hastings-On-Hudson) 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

Schiffer v. Village of Hastings-On-Hudson, 29 F. App'x 776 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Andrew C. Schiffer appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Barrington D. Parker, J.) dismissing his complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 16, 2001. Schiffer does not challenge the district court’s decision except to argue that New York State’s issuance of individual gun permits demonstrates [1] an individual right to carry arms, [2] a custom or policy sufficient to support his Section 1983 claim against the municipal defendants, and [3] bad faith of the individual officers when they confiscated Schiffer’s firearms. These arguments are without merit.

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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Andrew C. Schiffer appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Barrington D. Parker, J.) dismissing his complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 16, 2001. Schiffer does not challenge the district court’s decision except to argue that New York State’s issuance of individual gun permits demonstrates [1] an individual right to carry arms, [2] a custom or policy sufficient to support his Section 1983 claim against the municipal defendants, and [3] bad faith of the individual officers when they confiscated Schiffer’s firearms. These arguments are without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. App'x 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiffer-v-village-of-hastings-on-hudson-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack