Case ID: f-appx_355/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dean NASCA Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, Richard Palazzotto, John Does 1-10, said names being fictitious and intending to represent employees, agents and assigns of the Town of Brookhaven, Defendants-Appellees, Edward H. McCarthy, Geoffrey H. Pforr, Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Givan, LLP, Defendants.
    No. 08-5205-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
    Dean Nasca, Bayport, NY, pro se.
    Andrew J. Mihalick, Krai, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP, Mineóla, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Dean Nasca, pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants the Town of Brookhaven, Richard Plazzotto, and unnamed John Does (representing unnamed employees, agents, and assigns of the Town of Brookhaven) (collectively, “defendants”) in plaintiffs suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding certain property owned by plaintiff within the Town of Brookhaven, New York (the “Town”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, and (1) concluding that no rational jury could find that plaintiff was treated in an unequal manner in violation of the Equal Protection clause, (2) determining that the Town did not violate plaintiffs substantive due process rights, and (3) finding plaintiffs procedural due process claim time-barred.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999).

We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough, well-reasoned order of September 25, 2008, Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, No. 05-cv122, 2008 WL 4426906 (E.D.N.Y.2008), we find them to be without merit.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.