Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward PERCESEPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel F. DeVITA, Esq., Frank Fazio, John F. Hudacs, Thomas Hopkins, Maria Colavito and Robert Alger, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket Nos. 02-7935(L), 02-9074(CON).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 21, 2003.
    Edward Percesepe, Ronkonkoma, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
    Seth Kupferberg, Assistant Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, and Marion Buchbinder and M. Patricia Smith, of counsel, on the brief), for Appellees.
    PRESENT: JACOBS, STRAUB, and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

This appeal involves two of several serial lawsuits stemming from the New York State Department of Labor’s denial of Edward Percesepe’s 1994 application for a crane operator’s license. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. E.g., Belliveau v. Stevenson, 123 F.3d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1997). In docket number 02-7935, dismissal is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), e.g., United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir.1992), and imposition of an injunction limiting a litigant’s future access to the courts, e.g., Abdullah v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1985). We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s indulgent consideration of Percesepe’s lawsuits.

As to docket number 02-9074, we affirm dismissal per the stipulation that conceded dismissal of this lawsuit if docket number 02-7935 is dismissed.

The judgments of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.