Wilder v. Village of Amityville

Second Circuit

Wilder v. Village of Amityville

111 F. App'x 635

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2004

DocketNo. 04-0236-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 F. App'x 635 (Wilder v. Village of Amityville) 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

Wilder v. Village of Amityville, 111 F. App'x 635 (2d Cir. 2004).

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.

In May 2001, plaintiff-appellant Kimberly Wilder was arrested by defendants-appellees Ernest Thompson and Pamela Slack, police officers in the employ of defendant-appellee Village of Amityville (“the Village”). In June 2003, Wilder filed an amended complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Thompson, Slack, and the Village. She asserted that all three parties were liable for various constitutional torts, including false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and violations of her First Amendment rights. In October 2003, the district court (Platt, J.) issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellants on all of Wilder’s claims.

We agree for substantially the reasons given by the district court that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claims set forth in Wilder’s complaint.

We have considered all of Wilder’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore 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.

In May 2001, plaintiff-appellant Kimberly Wilder was arrested by defendants-appellees Ernest Thompson and Pamela Slack, police officers in the employ of defendant-appellee Village of Amityville (“the Village”). In June 2003, Wilder filed an amended complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Thompson, Slack, and the Village. She asserted that all three parties were liable for various constitutional torts, including false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and violations of her First Amendment rights. In October 2003, the district court (Platt, J.) issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellants on all of Wilder’s claims.

We agree for substantially the reasons given by the district court that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claims set forth in Wilder’s complaint.

We have considered all of Wilder’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-village-of-amityville-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack