Case Information
Adamou
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .
At stated United States Court Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, City York, nd January, two thousand eighteen.
PRESENT: R OSEMARY S. P OOLER
R ICHARD C. W ESLEY
P ETER W. H ALL
Circuit Judges.
______________________
IDRISSA ADAMOU,
Plaintiff Appellee, No.
DETECTIVE EDWARD DOYLE,
individual capacity,
______________________
*2 FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Richard L. Giampa, Zachary Giampa,
Richard L. Giampa, Esq. P.C., Bronx, NY, on the brief DEFENDANT APPELLANT: MARK A. RADI, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED DECREED that the Order of the district and with Defendant Appellant’s Edward J. Doyle appeals January Order of District for Southern District of York (Carter, ), clarifying denied Federal Rule Civil Procedure basis and immunity. also appeals same court, Federal Civil
Procedure assume parties’ familiarity underlying facts, procedural history, issues appeal. note outset we possess jurisdiction Order. That merely clarified court’s 14, 2016 denying Detective Doyle’s dismiss did “alter substantive rights affected by first judgment.” In re Am. Safety Indem. Co. , 502 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Farkas v. Rumore , 101 F.3d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1996)). 30 deadline file appeal from denial Detective Doyle’s ran from 14, 2016—the date first judgment motion. Doyle’s appeal 2017 is therefore untimely. have jurisdiction, however, over timely appeal 2017 his denial absolute or immunity de novo See Giraldo v. Kessler , 694 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2012) (absolute immunity); Benzman v. Whitman F.3d (2d Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity). Under Rehberg Paulk U.S. (2012), grand jury witness, including law enforcement officer, “has absolute immunity any § claim based witness’ testimony,” even if testimony perjurious. is entitled immunity this because plaintiff’s claims are “’based on’” allegedly false grand jury testimony, “as used Rehberg .” Coggins Buonora F.3d (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Rehberg U.S. 369). COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
[1] The respectfully directed amend caption conform above.