Summary
affirming dismissal of pro se complaint as frivolous
Summary of this case from Strunk v. New YorkOpinion
No. 08-3242-CV.
January 19, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Allyne R. Ross, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.
Christopher Earl Strunk, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
No appearance, for Appellees,
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, appeals from a June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiff's claims, sua sponte, for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint and reasserts the allegations made in that complaint. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.
We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).
Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum and Order dated May 9, 2008 and its Order and Civil Judgment of June 13, 2008, we conclude that Strunk failed to state a claim and that his action was frivolous. Accordingly, the June 13, 2008 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.