Stone v. Police Department

Second Circuit

Stone v. Police Department

160 F. App'x 104

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2005

DocketNo. 04-58090-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 160 F. App'x 104 (Stone v. Police Department) 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

Stone v. Police Department, 160 F. App'x 104 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[105]*105SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard E. Stone appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit against the New York City Police Department, the City of New York, and two police officers. Stone, suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in forma pauperis, alleges that the defendants’ improper handling of his reporting of an incident that he characterized as a “bias attack” violated his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The district court (Gershon, /.) dismissed Stone’s complaint, sua sponte and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we find Stone’s claim to be without merit. Stone does not allege that he was treated differently from similarly situated persons, see Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 193 (2d Cir.1994), nor does he allege facts sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory motivation, see Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 713 (2d Cir.1994). Accordingly we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

[105]*105SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard E. Stone appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit against the New York City Police Department, the City of New York, and two police officers. Stone, suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in forma pauperis, alleges that the defendants’ improper handling of his reporting of an incident that he characterized as a “bias attack” violated his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The district court (Gershon, /.) dismissed Stone’s complaint, sua sponte and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we find Stone’s claim to be without merit. Stone does not allege that he was treated differently from similarly situated persons, see Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 193 (2d Cir.1994), nor does he allege facts sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory motivation, see Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 713 (2d Cir.1994). Accordingly we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F. App'x 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-police-department-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack