Vessa v. City of White Plains

Full title: FRANK VESSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, CITY OF WHITE…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 11, 2014

588 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-1274

12-11-2014

FRANK VESSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, CITY OF WHITE PLAINS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT ERIC FISCHER, CHIEF JAMES M. BRADLEY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOE 1-10, said names being fictitious and presently unknown, MARY DOE 1-10, said names being fictitious and presently unknown, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, JOHN ROE 1-10, said names being fictitious and presently unknown, persons intended on being assistant district attorneys and/or personnel of Westchester County, MARY ROE 1-10, said names being fictitious and presently unknown, persons intended on being assistant district attorneys and/or personnel of Westchester County, Defendants.

For Plaintiff-Appellant: Holly Ostrov-Ronai, Ronai & Ronai, LLP, Port Chester, N.Y. For Defendants-Appellees City of White Plains, City of White Plains Police Department, Detective Lieutenant Eric Fischer, and Chief James M. Bradley: Lalit K. Loomba (Peter A. Meisels, Allison Holubis, on the brief), Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. For Defendant-Appellee Westchester County: Adam Rodriguez, Associate County Attorney, for Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

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 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 11^th day of December, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. For Plaintiff-Appellant: Holly Ostrov-Ronai, Ronai & Ronai, LLP, Port Chester, N.Y. For Defendants-Appellees City of White Plains, City of White Plains Police Department, Detective Lieutenant Eric Fischer, and Chief James M. Bradley: Lalit K. Loomba (Peter A. Meisels, Allison Holubis, on the brief), Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. For Defendant-Appellee Westchester County: Adam Rodriguez, Associate County Attorney, for Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y.

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

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

Frank Vessa ("Vessa") appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009). "We need not affirm for the reasons expressed by the district court but may affirm on any ground supported by the record." McNally Wellman Co. v. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 63 F.3d 1188, 1194 (2d Cir. 1995). Although it is not entirely clear whether the district court applied a heightened pleading standard in certain parts of its analysis, upon our independent review we agree that Vessa's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims were properly dismissed for failure to plausibly allege sufficient facts to support a claim for relief. Furthermore, we affirm the decision of the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vessa's state law claims. We have considered all of Vessa's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk