Case ID: f-appx_531/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sherry BENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Sandlin LOWE, III, M.D., personally and professionally, License # 179865, Michael Adam Ciranni, M.D., personally and professionally, License # 241809, Matthew Seth Holden, M.D., personally and professionally, License # 218629, Defendants-Appellees, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, et al., Defendants.
    
    No. 11-5149-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 3, 2013.
    Sherry Bender, New York, NY, pro se.
    Julie Steiner, Edward F.X. Hart, of Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: REENARAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Sherry Bender appeals pro se from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants R. Sandlin Lowe III, Michael Adam Ciranni, and Matthew Seth Holden, psychiatrists at New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation at Bellevue Hospital, on her claims that defendants violated her constitutional rights and committed medical malpractice by involuntarily admitting her to Bellevue’s psychiatric unit on March 8, 2006, and March 15, 2006. We review an award of summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-movant, and we will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir.2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that Bender’s appeal is without merit for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its comprehensive Memorandum and Order entered August 31, 2011. We have considered all of Bender’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.