Case ID: f-appx_140/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Calvin LUCKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, including the New York Police Department, John Weis, Detective, Wilfredo Ocasio, Police Officer, in their official and individual capacity and Al Rivera, Police Officer, in their official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 05-0310-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 25, 2005.
    Dan Cherner, Law Offices of Dan Cherner, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Norman Corenthal, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, on the brief; Kristin M. Helmers,), New York, NY, for Appellees, of counsel.
    PRESENT: Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges, and Hon. MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

This appeal arises out of claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by plaintiff-appellant Calvin Lucky for false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive use of force, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, substantive and procedural due process, failure to intervene, and a claim against the City of New York under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denise Cote, Judge) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to all claims, except for the claim of excessive force, and thereby dismissed those claims. Thereafter, the excessive force claim was settled by a Stipulation and Order that dismissed the complaint and closed the case. The plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, the plaintiff reasserts the same core argument made to the District Court: that the plaintiff was arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted without probable cause where the robbery victim who identified the plaintiff as his assailant made inconsistent statements about the incident. We have considered all of the plaintiff-appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

For essentially the reasons stated by the District Court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.