Case ID: f-appx_522/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ozan WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 120 PCT UNDERCOVER, district #9, O’BRIEN, DISTRICT # 9, 120TH PCT., JOHN DOE # 1, DISTRICT # 9, 120TH PCT., JOHN DOE, 120TH PCT., JOHN DOE, DISTRICT #9, JOHN DOE, 120TH PCT, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1098-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 22, 2013.
    Ozan Williams, pro se, East Elmhurst, NY, for Appellant.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
    
    
      
       Judge Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ozan Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

On de novo review of the district court’s § 1915(e)(2) dismissal, see Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001), we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned and thorough decision and order entered on February 15, 2012. Williams presents no justification for the delay in filing his § 1983 claim. Regardless of whether the district court properly considered a letter submitted by the City in determining whether to apply equitable tolling, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d), we conclude that, even in the absence of that letter, Williams did not demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify application of equitable tolling in his case, see Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Auth., 383 F.3d 74, 80-81 (2d Cir.2003); see also Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 82-83, 85 (2d Cir.2002).

We have considered all of Williams’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Thus, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.