17-1049 Ross v. Dempsey Uniform and Linen Supply 

## 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 (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5 th day of October, two thousand eighteen.

PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, VICTOR A. BOLDEN,* District Judge.

_____________________________________ Paul Raymond Ross, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. 17-1049 Dempsey Uniform and Linen Supply, James F. Greenwald, Assi stant Federal Public Defender, Matthew Brown, Senior United States Probation Officer in the Federal Probation Office in Syracuse, NY, Dorcas Brandon, Craig Benedict, Thomas McAvoy, Federal Court Judge, Robert Lyons, FBI Agent, Paul Bokol, Kristen Dempsey O’Donnell, Vice President of Dempsey Uniform and Linen Supply, Thomas O’Donnell, FBI Agent, Federal Public Defenders, in Syracuse, NY,

* Judge Victor A. Bolden, of the United States Di strict Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.2 Defendants-Appellees

.

_____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Pa ul Raymond Ross, pro se, Sidney, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for th e Northern District District of New York (Mordue, J .; Stewart, M.J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Paul Raymond Ross, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint raising claims under, inter alia , 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural hist ory of the case, and the issues on appeal. This Court reviews a § 1915(e)(2) dismissal de novo. Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t , 879 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2018). The district court must li berally construe a pro se complaint, see Nance v. Kelly , 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990), but nonetheless must dismiss the complaint sua sponte if it is brought in forma paupe ris and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). He re, an independent review of the record and

relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm for substant ially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough D ecember 29, 2016, report and recommendation.We have considered all of Appellant’s argum ents and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court