Yeldon v. Hogan

Second Circuit

Yeldon v. Hogan

400 F. App'x 580

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 2010

Docket10-1129-pr

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 400 F. App'x 580 (Yeldon v. Hogan) 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

Yeldon v. Hogan, 400 F. App'x 580 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Willie James Yeldon, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Yel-don’s complaint in its entirety. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). To that end, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, “eonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Yeldon’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit.

*581 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

Appellant Willie James Yeldon, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Yel-don’s complaint in its entirety. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). To that end, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, “eonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Yeldon’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F. App'x 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeldon-v-hogan-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack