Boley v. Durets, 687 F. App'x 40

Plaintiff Robert Boley, pro se, sued NYPD officers Sergeant Dmitry Durets and Officer Dexter Deonarinesingh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution arising from state criminal proceedings.
District court granted summary judgment for the officers, dismissing claims for lack of personal involvement; Boley appealed.
Boley conceded on appeal that Durets and Deonarinesingh were not involved in his arrest but argued they lied at trial about their roles to protect other officers and thus participated in his prosecution.
The central factual dispute is whether the officers’ testimony or identification of the arresting officer materially contributed to the initiation or continuation of the prosecution.
Boley introduced no evidence showing the officers’ alleged misstatements influenced the prosecution’s case; his allegations were largely conclusory.
The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment, concluding Boley failed to show the officers’ personal involvement in malicious prosecution and waived his false-arrest challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest — personal involvement	Boley initially alleged arrest was false but later conceded Durets and Deonarinesingh had nothing to do with his arrest	Officers not involved in arrest	Waived by Boley on appeal; claim not pursued
Malicious prosecution — initiation element	Officers lied at trial and misidentified the arresting officer, thereby protecting other officers and helping to initiate/prosecute charges	Officers did not initiate prosecution and any misidentification did not further the prosecution	Dismissed: Boley failed to show officers played an active role in initiating prosecution or that misstatements affected the case
Sufficiency of evidence to survive summary judgment	Testimony that officers perjured themselves or lied is sufficient to show participation	Conclusory allegations without evidence cannot defeat summary judgment	Summary judgment affirmed; conclusory assertions insufficient
Claims against Doe defendants and service	Doe defendants named but not identified or served	No defense needed; procedural defect	Claims against Does abandoned/dismissed for failure to identify and serve

Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment)
Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995) (same)
Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1994) (§ 1983 requires personal involvement)
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 412 F.3d 418 (2d Cir. 2005) (arguments not raised in opening brief are waived)
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (pro se appellant abandons issues not raised on appeal)
Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (to initiate prosecution, defendant must play active role beyond reporting or testifying)
Day v. Morgenthau, 909 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990) (claims abandoned when not argued on appeal)