Stephen PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel LABELLA, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Chief, Mark Williams, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Chief, John Toomey, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Captain, Edward Noonan, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Howard Brodt, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Officer Joshua Grande, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, James Holt, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Todd Duval, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Michael Curley, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Samuel Geddes, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Steven Hauck, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Brian Bansner, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Linda Fatata, individually and in her official capacity as Utica Corporation Counsel, City of Utica, Daniel Cozza, individually and in his official capacity as Codes Officer, Gerald Foster, individually and in his official capacity as Fire Fighter, John Doe, unknown individually and in his official capacity as Utica city employee, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-4051.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 11, 2016.
John Paul Orilio, Zachary Christopher Oren, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Utica Law Department, Utica, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Stephen Patterson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate where ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 843 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting
On appeal, Patterson challenges only the dismissal of his false arrest, malicious prosecution, and unlawful entry claims relating to the October 10, 2009, October 24, 2009, and January 1, 2010 incidents. Accordingly, he has abandoned his other claims. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).*
We also conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Patterson’s illegal search claim as to the October 24, 2009 incident on the ground that Patterson had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a commercial establishment that he opened to the public. See Wash. Square Post No. 1212 Am. Legion v. Maduro, 907 F.2d 1288, 1291 (2d Cir.1990). In addition, the district court correctly concluded that the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. It was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their conduct was lawful in light of their knowledge of past incidents at Patterson’s premises, their observations of numerous minors entering and exiting the building, and their interviews with several of the minors who were loitering outside. See Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that a “qualified immunity defense is established if ... it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate [clearly established] law”); Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir.1998) (same).
We have considered all of Patterson’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.