Opinion
20-3778
08-27-2021
NEIL MCNAUGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BILL DE BLASIO, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DERMOT F. SHEA, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL J. SILVER, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, CENTURY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 5 WEST 14 OWNERS CORP., NORMAN BELLINO, LISA GOLUB, GALEN J. CRISCIONE, CRISCIONE-RAVELA LLP, FERN LEE, THE ESTATE OF LAURA G. MCNAUGHTON, DAVID L. MOSS, DAVID L. MOSS &ASSOCIATES, LLC, JANE AND JOHN DOE, POLICE OFFICERS, AND CIVILIAN NYPD EMPLOYEES 1-200, SUPERVISOR AND DETECTIVES 1-200, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, JANE AND JOHN DOE, DOE CIVILIANS 1-200, Defendants-Appellees.
Appearing for Appellant: Neil McNaughton, pro se, New York, N.Y.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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 27th day of August, two thousand twenty-one.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.).
Appearing for Appellant:
Neil McNaughton, pro se, New York, N.Y.
Appearing for Appellees: No appearance.
Present: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Neil McNaughton, a retired attorney proceeding pro se, sued several New York City officials, multiple civilians, and hundreds of Jane and John Does under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various constitutional violations and state law claims, including defamation, contract, and fraud. His complaint alleged a years-long conspiracy among the New York City Police Department, his apartment cooperative, and private citizens aimed at harassing and defaming him based on false accusations of pedophilia.
The district court sua sponte dismissed McNaughton's complaint, reasoning that he failed to state a claim, his allegations were implausible, and his complaint was frivolous. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McNaughton's state law claims and declined to grant leave to amend his complaint as futile. McNaughton appeals. We affirm the district court's dismissal and denial of leave to amend for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court. See generally McNaughton v. de Blasio, No. 20-CV-6991 (JMF), 2020 WL 5983100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020).
We have considered all of McNaughton's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.