Case Information
*1 09-4507-pr
Cotton v. McCarthy
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the thirtieth day of June, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT:
R OGER J. M INER ,
J OSÉ A. C ABRANES ,
R ICHARD C. W ESLEY ,
Circuit Judges
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
M AURICE C OTTON ,
Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 09-4507-pr E RIN M C C ARTHY , T HOMAS B EYERS , C HRISTOPHER S TERLACE ,
C ITY OF B UFFALO ,
Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees ,
B OYD L EE D UNLOP ,
Defendant-Cross-Defendant .*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
*2 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Maurice Cotton, pro se , Buffalo, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Carmen J. Gentile, Assistant Corporation Counsel
(David Rodriguez, Acting Corporation Counsel, of counsel ), City of Buffalo Department of Law, Buffalo, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge ).
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is
Plaintiff-appellant Maurice Cotton (“plaintiff” or “Cotton”), pro se , appeals from a judgment of the District Court, dismissing his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against defendants-appellees Erin McCarthy, Thomas Beyers, Christopher Sterlace, and the City of Buffalo (“defendants”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case.
Generally, a district court’s dismissal of some, but not all, defendants is not an appealable
order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the court certifies an appeal from that order.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b);
In re Chateaugay Corp.
,
Turning to the merits, we find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of
plaintiff’s claims, and we agree that the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint were insufficient to state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough Decision and Order dated
September 28, 2009.
See Cotton v. McCarthy
, No. 06-CV-477S,
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
FOR THE COURT, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Notes
[*] The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.