Case ID: f-appx_45/html/0078-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George ROSQUIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF N.Y. and City of New York, Defendants, Thomas Love, individually, Herbert V. Warne, Diane M. Larsen, John Doe, also known as D’Agostino, (N.Y.PD Badge # 14265), Dick Koe, also known as Thomas P., (Con Ed employee # 403261), Thomas Koe, also known as G. Reeder, Thomas Hollywood, David I. Schmidt, Employee of the Civil Court of the City of NY, Kings County, and Richard W. Babinecz, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 02-7182.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 17, 2002.
    George Rosquist, Staten Island, NY, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Helman R. Brook, New York, NY, (Richard W. Babinecz, New York, NY, on the brief) for Appellees Thomas Love, Herbert V. Warne, Diane M. Larsen, Thomas Hollywood and Richard W. Babi-necz, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, and HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Harold Baer, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

George Rosquist appeals from a judgement by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sif-ton, J.) dismissing his second amended complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons in the district court’s opinion. Rosquist v. Richard C. Babinecz, CV-99-1531 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002). We also affirm the district court’s June 22, 2001 order denying Rosquist’s motion for recu-sal as we see no abuse of discretion; and we affirm its August 15, 2001 order amending the caption by deleting Consolidated Edison of New York and the City of New York, since they have been previously dismissed from this suit.

Finally, we dismiss Rosquist’s purported appeal from the district court’s September 8, 1999 order based on our previous affir-mance of this order on appeal. See Ros-quist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 208 F.3d 203 (Table) (2d Cir.2000).