18‐1424 Spillers v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp. 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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 17th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 4 5 PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 MARK SPILLERS, 11 12 Plaintiff‐Appellant, 13 14 v. No. 18‐1424 15 16 NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND 17 HOSPITALS CORPORATION, 18 KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL CENTER, 19 20 Defendants‐Appellees. 21 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 22 1 FOR APPELLANT: MARK SPILLERS, pro se, 2 Brooklyn, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: YASMIN ZAINULBHAI (Jeremy 5 W. Shweder, on the brief), for 6 Zachary W. Carter, 7 Corporation Counsel of the 8 City of New York, New York, 9 NY. 10 11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 12 District of New York (Pamela K. Chen, Judge). 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 14 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 15 Mark Spillers, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Chen, 16 J.), granting the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 17 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Spillers sued his former 18 employers, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Kings 19 County Hospital Center, claiming, among other things, that they violated the 20 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., by failing to 21 provide reasonable accommodations for his mental disability. As relevant to this 22 appeal, the District Court dismissed the action because Spillers did not exhaust 23 his failure to accommodate claim prior to bringing suit and because the 2 1 accommodation he requested was in any event unreasonable. We assume the 2 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, 3 to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 4 This Court reviews a dismissal for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 5 Rule 12(c) de novo, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all 6 reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Jaffer v. Hirji, 887 F.3d 111, 114 (2d 7 Cir. 2018). In order to survive a Rule 12(c) motion, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals