Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert M. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BONZAGNI, Warden, I/O Capacity, Ramon Martinez, I/O Capacity, Property Officer, C/O, I/O Capacity, John Doe # 2, I/O Capacity, Richard T. Biggar, Asst. Atty. General, I/O Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, James R. SMITH, Claims Comm., Defendant.
    Nos. 02-0283, 02-0313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2004.
    
      Robert M. Grant, Enfield, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
    Michael J. Lanoue, Assistant Attorney-General, for Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT (on submission), for Defendant Appellee.
    PRESENT: MESKILL, CALABRESI, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert M. Grant (“Grant”), incarcerated and proceeding pro se, brought this action in the District of Connecticut alleging that the DefendantsAppellees (“Defendants”) engaged in a panoply of unconstitutional and illegal conduct in the course of administrative proceedings conducted in connection with Grant’s complaints of missing property. The Defendants moved to dismiss Grant’s complaint, and Magistrate Judge Garfinkel, before whom the parties consented to proceed, granted the Defendants’ motion in a thoughtful and comprehensive opinion.

We conclude, based substantially on the reasoning of the court below, that dismissal of Grant’s complaint was proper. We have considered all of Grant’s contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.