Strunk v. United States Postal Service

Second Circuit

Strunk v. United States Postal Service

361 F. App'x 217

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

DocketNo. 08-3242-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 361 F. App'x 217 (Strunk v. United States Postal Service) 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

Strunk v. United States Postal Service, 361 F. App'x 217 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, appeals from a June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs claims, sua sponte, for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint and reasserts the allegations made in that complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001).

Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum and Order dated May 9, 2008 and its Order and Civil Judgment of June 13, 2008, we conclude that Strunk failed to state a claim and that his action was frivolous. Accordingly, the June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, appeals from a June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs claims, sua sponte, for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint and reasserts the allegations made in that complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001).

Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum and Order dated May 9, 2008 and its Order and Civil Judgment of June 13, 2008, we conclude that Strunk failed to state a claim and that his action was frivolous. Accordingly, the June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F. App'x 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strunk-v-united-states-postal-service-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack