Preacely v. City of N.Y.

Full title: Woodrow Wilson Preacely, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of New York/New York…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 24, 2013

531 F. App'x 173 (2d Cir. 2013)

Opinion

12-3061-cv

2013-09-24

Woodrow Wilson Preacely, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of New York/New York Police Department, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Mincy Blackstone, Esq., et al., Defendants.

FOR PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT: Woodrow Wilson Preacely, pro se, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLEE CITY OF NEW YORK/NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT: Diana Lawless, Esq., New York City Law Department, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS -APPELLEES NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND MINDY BLACKSTOCK, ESQ.: Kevin Cullen McCaffrey, Esq., Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York, NY.

RALPH K. WINTER

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 TO 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 24^th day of September, two thousand thirteen. PRESENT:

RALPH K. WINTER,

JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

FOR PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT:

Woodrow Wilson Preacely, pro se, New

York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLEE
CITY OF NEW YORK/NEW YORK
POLICE DEPARTMENT:

Diana Lawless, Esq., New York City

Law Department, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS -APPELLEES
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
AND MINDY BLACKSTOCK, ESQ.:

Kevin Cullen McCaffrey, Esq., Cullen

and Dykman LLP, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Woodrow Wilson Preacely, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a complaint on Rule 8 grounds for an abuse of discretion. Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Preacely's claims. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 12, 2012 decision.

We have considered all of Preacely's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk