The Honor able L ewis A. Ka plan, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by designation. 07-1 015 -cv K rug v. M cNa lly , Jr. 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 R UL I NGS BY SUM M ARY ORD E R D O NO T HAVE PR E CE DENTI AL E F F E CT . C I TATI O N TO A SU M M ARY O RD ER F I L ED ON O R AFT ER 7 J A NUA R Y 1, 2007, I S P E R M I T T E D A ND I S G OV E R NE D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E O F A PPE L L ATE P RO CED U RE 3 2 .1 AND T HI S C OU RT ’ S 8 L O C A L R U L E 32. 1. 1. W HEN CI T I NG A SU M M AR Y O RD E R I N A D OCU M E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S C OU RT , A PARTY M U ST CI TE 9 EI THER TH E F E D E R A L A PPE N D I X O R AN EL ECTRO N I C D ATABASE ( WI T H T HE NOT A T I ON “ SU M M ARY O RD ER ”). A PARTY 10 CI TI N G A SU M M ARY O RD ER M U ST S ERVE A CO PY O F I T ON AN Y PARTY N O T REPRE SENTED B Y CO U N SEL . 11 12 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 13 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 8 day of th 14 Marc h, two thousand ten. 15 16 PRES ENT: 17 J OHN M. WALKER, J r., 18 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 19 Circuit Judges , 20 L EWI S A. KAPLAN, * 21 District Judge. 22

_______________________________________________ 23 24 Robert L . Krug , 25 26 Plaintif f-Appellant , 27 v. No. 07-1015-c v 28 29 Ric ha

rd McNa lly , Jr. , B art le , M c Gr ane , D uf fy , a nd Jone s, 30 Pe te r B . Jon e s, 31 32 De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle e s. 33

______________________________________________ 34 35 For

Appellant: ROBERT L . KRUG, pro s e , New 36 Ba ltimore, N.Y. 37 38 For

Appellee s: SCOTT W . BU SH, Roche, Corrig an, 39 M c C o y & B u s h , P L L C , A l b any, 40 N.Y.2

1 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of 2 New Y ork (Ka

hn, J. ). 3 UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 4 DECREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED . 5 Pla int if

f- a pp e lla nt R ob e rt L . K ru ga pp e a ls pro se from a judgment of the United States 6 District Court for the Nor thern District of N ew Yor k (Ka hn, J. ) date d Fe bruar

y 8, 2007, granting 7 summary

judgme nt to the Defe ndants-Appe llees and dismissing Kr ug ’s complaint brought 8 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Krugalleg ed that his privately-re tained attorne y s deprived him of 9 his c on sti tut ion a l rights un de r t he F if th, Sixth, and

F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts by

int e rf e ri ngwi th 10 and depriving him of e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in relation to state c riminal charg es brought 11 ag ainst him. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts a nd proce dural history 12 of the c ase. 13 We r e vie w o rd e rs g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and dete rmine whe ther the district 14 court prope rly

conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the 15 moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. See Cronin v. Ae tna Lif e Ins. Co. , 46 16 F.3d 196, 202- 03 (2d Cir. 1995). 17 The district cour t did not err in deter

mining that Kr

ugfailed to state a

claim under

§ 1983 18 beca

use the De fenda

nts are not state actor s. See A m. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 40, 19 49 -5 1 ( 19 99 ); Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981). K rug ’s vague alleg ations of 20 conspirac y

to deprive him of his constitutional rig hts are a lso insufficient to sustain a claim under 21 § 1983. “[C] omplaints containing only conclusory , vague, or g ener al alleg ations that the 22 defe ndants have eng ag ed in a c onspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights a re3

1 properly

dismiss ed; diffuse and expansive alleg ations are insufficient, unless amplified by 2 specific instances of misconduct.” Ciambriello v. County of Nas sau , 292 F.3d 307, 325 ( 2d Cir. 3 2002) (quotingDw ares v . Ci ty of N e w York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 ( 2d Cir. 1993)) (inter nal quotation 4 marks omitted). 5 As to Krug ’s state lawclaims, a district cour t has discre tion to ex erc ise supplemental 6 jurisdiction over state law claims. See28 U. S.C. § 1 36 7( c ). He re , th e c ourt did no t a bu se its 7 discretion in dec lining to exercise jurisdiction over Krug ’s state lawclaims, in light of the f act 8 that it

ha d d ism iss e d a ll o f K

ru g ’s fe de ra l c la ims . 9 We have c onsidered a ll of Krug ’s re maining a rguments and find them to be without 10 merit. For

the re asons stated a

bove, the judgment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED. 11 12 F OR TH E CO UR T: 13 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 14 15