T he Cl er k of C our t i s di r ect ed t o a m end t he o ff i ci al ca pt i on t o co nf

or m t o t he l i s t i ng of

t he p ar t i es s t at ed * abo ve. 1 09- 5009- cv P erri v. C i t y o f N ew Y ork
UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to a summ ary order filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a d oc um en t f

il edwi thth is c ou r t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en dix o r

an el ect r on ic da ta ba se (

wi thth e n ot at io n " su m m ar y o r de r ") . A p ar ty

ci ti ng a su m m ar

y o r de r must serve a copy of iton any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e twenty-f

ourt h day of June, two t housand and t en.
PR E SE NT: R AL P H K. W I NT ER , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x A NT HONY P ERRI , Pl

aint iff -A ppella nt ,
v. No . 09 -5 009 -c v C I TY O F N E W Y O RK , I LL EG AL U NI T S OF T HE N. Y.P .D ., and the s o n ame d i ndivi du als of

th eir Unit , J OHN D OE #1, J OHN D OE #2, A NT HONY R. D ISA L V IO , J ANE D OE ,

Defenda nts-App ellees .*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F - AP P ELLAN T: Antho ny S . P er r i, pro se, N ew Yo r k, N Y. FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Scott Schorr, Senior Counsel, Appe als Division, The Cit y of New Yor k L aw D epar tm ent , N ew Yo r k, N Y. App eal f r oma ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Eas te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Allyne R. Ro s s , Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D
. Pl ain ti ff -a pp ell ant Antho ny P er r

i ( “P er r i” o r “P lai nt if f”), pro se, ap peal s fr omth e Di s tr ict Court’s or der declining

to appoint a gua rdian ad litem a nd dismis sing his complaint without pr eju di ce. We as s um e the p ar ti es ’ f amilia r it y with the f

actual andpr oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e. We r evi ew d ecis io ns onwhe th er to app oi nt

a gu ar di an adlit em u nd er Fe d. R. Civ . P . 17 (c) fo r abu s e of di s cr et io n. See Fe rrelli v. River M

anor Health C

are Ctr. , 32 3 F .3d196 , 20 0 ( 2dCir . 20 03)
. If, in the district court’s view, it is clear that no subst antial c laim coul d be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff, even with the assis tance of a guardian a d litem, the court may dismiss the compla int witho ut pr eju di ce. Se e B er

ri o s v . N .Y. Cit y Ho us . A uth
. , 564 F.3d 130, 13 5 (2d Cir. 2009). Having revi ewe d the record in light of those pr inciple s, we affirm the judgment of the Di s tr ict Cou r t s ub s tan ti ally f

or th e r eas on s s tat ed b y J udge Ro s s inher th or ough a ndwell -r eas on ed Op inio n an d O r der
. See Pe rr i v . Cit y o f N .Y. , N o. 08 CV

045 1, 2 009 WL 3 839 317 (E. D. N. Y. N ov . 17, 2009). CONCLUSI ON We have considered a ll of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore go in g re a son s, the ju dgme nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D
.
FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court