Opinion
23-193-cv
05-14-2024
Paul West, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Hartford, Jason Thody, Rafael Medina, Sonia Watson, Dustin Rendock, Ian Powell, and Kevin O'Brien, Defendants-Appellees.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: CYNTHIA R. JENNINGS, Hartford, CT. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: JOHN P. SHEA, JR., JESSICA LYNN VIZVARY DRAPER, Jackson Lewis P.C., Hartford, CT.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 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 14th day of May, two thousand twenty-four.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kari A. Dooley, J.).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: CYNTHIA R. JENNINGS, Hartford, CT.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: JOHN P. SHEA, JR., JESSICA LYNN VIZVARY DRAPER, Jackson Lewis P.C., Hartford, CT.
PRESENT: JOSE A. CABRANES, MARIA ARAUJO KAHN, Circuit Judges, KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge. [*]
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on December 27, 2022, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Paul West ("West") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor Defendants-Appellees City of Hartford, Jason Thody, Rafael Medina, Sonia Watson, Dustin Rendock, Ian Powell, and Kevin O'Brien. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
Having reviewed de novo the district court's decision and the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. We deny West's motion to supplement the appellate record with evidence that was available, but not introduced, below. Additionally, defendants- appellees' motion to strike is denied as moot, as we did not consider arguments and evidence not before the district court in reaching our decision.
We also note that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the district court's denial of West's motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Here, West timely filed his appeal on February 11, 2023, noticing only his intent to challenge the judgment entered on December 27, 2022. That notice of appeal preceded his filing of a post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion by more than five months. The district court denied his motion on November 7, 2023, and West did not file a notice of appeal from that order or an amended notice of appeal as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
[*]Judge Katherine Polk Failla, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.