Vessa v. City of White Plains

Second Circuit

Vessa v. City of White Plains

588 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

DocketNo. 14-1274

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 588 F. App'x 9 (Vessa v. City of White Plains) 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

Vessa v. City of White Plains, 588 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Frank Vessa (“Vessa”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule [10]*10of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir.2009). “We need not affirm for the reasons expressed by the district court but may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” McNally Wellman Co. v. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 63 F.3d 1188, 1194 (2d Cir.1995). Although it is not entirely clear whether the district court applied a heightened pleading standard in certain parts of its analysis, upon our independent review we agree that Vessa’s First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed for failure to plausibly allege sufficient facts to support a claim for relief. Furthermore, we affirm the decision of the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vessa’s state law claims. We have considered all of Vessa’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated above, the 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

Frank Vessa (“Vessa”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule [10]*10of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir.2009). “We need not affirm for the reasons expressed by the district court but may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” McNally Wellman Co. v. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 63 F.3d 1188, 1194 (2d Cir.1995). Although it is not entirely clear whether the district court applied a heightened pleading standard in certain parts of its analysis, upon our independent review we agree that Vessa’s First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed for failure to plausibly allege sufficient facts to support a claim for relief. Furthermore, we affirm the decision of the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vessa’s state law claims. We have considered all of Vessa’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vessa-v-city-of-white-plains-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack