Varszegi v. Strom

Second Circuit

Varszegi v. Strom

324 F. App'x 85

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2009

DocketNo. 07-1597-pr

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 85 (Varszegi v. Strom) 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

Varszegi v. Strom, 324 F. App'x 85 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Paul Varszegi, appearing pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Varszegi filed a forty-four count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against corrections officers, prison officials, doctors, and an assistant state prosecutor for alleged violations of his constitutional rights and Connecticut law. The district court granted summary judgment as to all Varszegi’s claims by ruling and order dated March 23, 2007. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

[86]*86We have considered all of Varszegi’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decision.

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

Paul Varszegi, appearing pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Varszegi filed a forty-four count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against corrections officers, prison officials, doctors, and an assistant state prosecutor for alleged violations of his constitutional rights and Connecticut law. The district court granted summary judgment as to all Varszegi’s claims by ruling and order dated March 23, 2007. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

[86]*86We have considered all of Varszegi’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F. App'x 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varszegi-v-strom-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack