Summary
finding that a plaintiff “blatantly change[d] his statements of the facts” by alleging that he was employed as a “specialist” in an amended pleading, but as an “attorney” in his initial complaint
Summary of this case from Krolick v. SloaneOpinion
No. 08-5556-cv.
December 16, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
James Colliton, Poughkeepsie, NY, pro se.
Robert H. Baron (Stuart W. Gold, on the brief), Cravath, Swain Moore LLP, pro se, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Present: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court's Memorandum and Order, 2008 WL 4386764, dated September 23, 2008, we conclude that the Defendant-Appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.