18-1942 Emengo v. Stark, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 22nd day of May, two thousand nineteen. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge.* _______________________________________ BENEDICT O. EMENGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 18-1942 SHRILEY STARK, JOSEPH MULLEN, GEORGE TIDONA, JOHN AND JANE DOE, (SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, THE PERSONS INTENDED BEING THOSE WHO AIDED AND ABETTED THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS), Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________________ * Judge Richard M. Berman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. For Plaintiff-Appellant: SAMUEL O. MADUEGBUNA (William W. Cowles, on the brief), Maduegbuna Cooper LLP, New York, NY. For Defendants-Appellees: LINDA FANG, Assistant Solicitor General (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy Solicitor General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia A. James, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY. 1 Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 2 New York (Hellerstein, J.). 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 5 Plaintiff-Appellant Benedict Emengo (“Emengo”) appeals from the November 7, 2017 6 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 7 (Hellerstein, J.) denying Emengo leave to file and serve an amended complaint, and the district 8 court’s November 17, 2017 decision and order denying his motion for reconsideration. Emengo 9 also appeals the June 12, 2018 decision and order of the district court granting summary 10 judgment to Defendants-Appellees Shirley Stark, Joseph Mullen, and George Tidona 11 (collectively, “Defendants”). 12 We review the denial of both a motion for reconsideration and a motion to amend for 13 abuse of discretion. Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir. 2007); 14 Munafo v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004). “We review de novo a district 15 court’s grant of summary judgment, ‘construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 16 non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.’” Mitchell v. City of New 17 York, 841 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Costello v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals