Opinion
23-816-cv
05-24-2024
ZELMA RIVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK LOTTERY, OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, Defendants-Appellees. [*]
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Zelma Rivas, pro se, Clifton Park, New York. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, (Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, and Joseph M. Spadola, Assistant Solicitor General, of Counsel, on the brief) for Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, New York.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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 24th day of May, two thousand twenty-four.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Brenda Kay Sannes, Chief Judge).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Zelma Rivas, pro se, Clifton Park, New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, (Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, and Joseph M. Spadola, Assistant Solicitor
General, of Counsel, on the brief) for Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, New York.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MYRNA PEREZ, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment, entered on April 17, 2023, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Zelma Rivas, pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir. 2015). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. See Rivas v. N.Y. Lottery, No. 1:21-cv-00932 (BKS/DJS), 2023 WL 2968185 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2023).
* * *
We have considered all of Rivas's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
[*] The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption on this Court's docket to be consistent with the caption on this order.