Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jawan Akil BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, The City of New York Department of Correction, Michael Caruso, Individually and as Inspector General of the New York City Department of Investigations, Nicholas Kaiser, Individually and as Attorney for the Department of Correction Office of Trials and Litigation, Bernard B. Kerik, individually and as Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Correction, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-2118-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 31, 2011.
    
      Jawan Akil Bey, pro se, Bracey, VA, for Appellant.
    Ellen Ravitch, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Jawan Akil Bey, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting defendants’ motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, accepting as true the factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir.2007); Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006). Having conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s decision and order. We have considered the appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.