The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated *

above.

1

09-5009-cv

Perri v. City of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary

order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in

a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an

electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order

must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at

the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New

York, on the twenty-fourth day of June, two thousand and ten.

PRESENT:

RALPH K. WINTER,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANTHONY PERRI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 09-5009-cv

CITY OF NEW YORK, ILLEGAL UNITS OF THE N.Y.P.D., and the

so named individuals of their Unit, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE

#2, ANTHONY R. DISALVIO, JANE DOE,

Defendants-Appellees.*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
2

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Anthony S. Perri, pro se, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Scott Schorr, Senior Counsel, Appeals Division, The

City of New York Law Department, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York (Allyne R. Ross, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Perri (“Perri” or “Plaintiff”), pro se, appeals from the District

Court’s order declining to appoint a guardian ad litem and dismissing his complaint without

prejudice. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case.

We review decisions on whether to appoint a guardian ad litem under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)

for abuse of discretion. See Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003). 

If, in the district court’s view, it is clear that no substantial claim could be asserted on behalf of a

plaintiff, even with the assistance of a guardian ad litem, the court may dismiss the complaint

without prejudice. See Berrios v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2009).

Having reviewed the record in light of those principles, we affirm the judgment of the

District Court substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Ross in her thorough and well-reasoned

Opinion and Order. See Perri v. City of N.Y., No. 08 CV 0451, 2009 WL 3839317 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.

17, 2009).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the

foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court