Opinion
13-2165-cv
04-15-2014
FATIMA FISHER, Two years old, RAHEEM FISHER, Ten years old, Plaintiffs, TASHENA AMPRATWUM, ERIC FISHER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, LAW DEPARTMENT'S RACHAEL KISH-ESQ., LT. KENNY, SGT. PHILIP JIMENEZ, SGT. CHRISTINE MELHORN, SGT. MENENDEZ, P.O. DENISE ENMANUEL, P.O. VARGAS, A.C.S. AGENCY, P.O. TURNAGE, Defendants-Appellees, NYPD AGENCY, CCRB AGENCY'S GRAHAM DAW-ESQ., BRONX COUNTY'S JUDGE ROBERT REEDS, NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT (MICHAEL CHESTNOV), NEW YORK STATE ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL (CHARLES F. SANDERS), Defendants.
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Tashena Ampratwum and Eric Fisher, pro se, Bronx, New York. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Victoria Scalzo and Kristin M. Helmers, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of April, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
DENNY CHIN,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS:
Tashena Ampratwum and Eric Fisher,
pro se, Bronx, New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:
Victoria Scalzo and Kristin M.
Helmers, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo,
Corporation Counsel of the City of
New York, New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-appellants Tashena Ampratwum and Eric Fisher, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court's May 13, 2013 judgment entered pursuant to the court's May 9, 2013 opinion and order, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint alleging various constitutional violations and violations of state law. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). We resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion and order.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk