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 (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY 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 5th 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, Assistant 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 District Court for the District of Connecticut, 

sitting by designation.
2 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Paul Raymond Ross, pro se, 

Sidney, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 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 history 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 liberally 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 pauperis and fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, 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 substantially the reasons stated by the 

magistrate judge in his thorough December 29, 2016, report and recommendation. 
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments 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