1 14-4000-cv Troy v. City of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECO ND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PR OCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMEN T FILED WITH THIS CO URT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATA BASE (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 Seco nd Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United Stat es Courthouse, 40 Foley Sq uare, in the City of New York, on the 25 th day of August, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges

.

________________ __________________ _______________ SUZANNAH B. TROY, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 14-4000-cv CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY COMMISSIONER RAYM OND KELLY, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU CHIE F CAMPISI, DEPUTY INSPECTOR EDWARD WINSKI, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT LIEUTENANT ANGELO BURGOS, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT SERGEANT CHEN, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE JOHN VERGONA, DETECTIVE AN DY DWYER, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT IN TERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU AGNES, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU SERGEANT MARY O'DONNELL, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND2 INDIVIDUAL CAPACITI ES (BADGE NUMBERS REQUESTED WITHHELD FOR DET. VERGONA, SGT. CHEN, DET. DWYER), Defendants-Appellees

. 1

________________ __________________ _______________ APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: SUZANNAH B. TROY, pro se, Brooklyn, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: JONA THAN A. POPOLOW, Special Counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 26, 2014, is AFFIRMED. Appellant Suzannah B. Troy, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which charged the City of New York and numerous members of the city’s Police Department with violatin g her First Amendment and Equal Protection rights by failing to investigate an alleged assa ult that she had reported and by threatening

her with arrest. We assume th e parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we referen ce only as necessary to expl ain our decision to affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismis sal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the

1 The Clerk of Court respectfully is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.3 complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable in ferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). To su rvive a motion to dismiss, a compla int must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and “allow[] th e court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcro ft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). An independent review of the record and re levant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Troy’s claims, and we affirm for su bstantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well -reasoned decision. See Troy v. City of New York, No. 13-cv-5082 (AJN ), 2014 WL 4804479 (S.D .N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014). On appeal, Troy argues that the district court should have construed her complaint as raising a claim of racial, as well as sexual, discrimination because she is of a different race than her alleged assailant. She failed, however, to allege any facts supporting a plausible claim that defendants’ treatment of he r criminal complaint and that of her alleged assailant differed “based on impermissible c onsideration[]” of their races. Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 357 (2d Cir. 2011) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Troy also faults the district court for faili ng to consider that a detective directed her to report for arrest on a Saturday, after she in formed him that she wa s Jewish. The point merits little discussion because, as the dist rict court correctly obs erved, Troy’s resolution of her dispute with the alleged assailant obviated the need for her to surrender for arrest on4 any day. Thus, she fails plausibly to alle ge injury resulting from the assigned date. We have considered all of Troy’s remaini ng arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLF E, Clerk of Court