Th e H ono rab le Mar k R . K rav itz , o f t he Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t * for th e D ist ric t o f C onn ect icu t, sit tin g b y d esi gna tio n. 

### 1 08- 469 8-c v Bry an v. Cit y o f N ew Yor k



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR 

### T HE 

### S ECOND 

### C IRC UIT 

### SUMMARY ORDER

R ULI NGS BYSU

MMA RY ORD ER DO NOTHA VE PRE CED ENT IALEF FEC T . C ITATION T O A SU MMA RY ORD ER FILED ON OR AFT ER J ANU ARY 1, 200 7, IS PE RMI TTE D A ND IS GOV

ERNED BY FEDE RAL R ULE OF APPE LLATE P ROC EDURE 32. 1 AND T HIS C OURT ’ S L OCA L R ULE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CI TING A

SU MMA RY ORD ER IN A D OCU MENT F ILE D W ITHTH IS C OURT , A PARTY MUS T C ITEEI THE R T HE FEDE RAL APPENDI X OR AN ELE CTR ONI C DATA

BAS E ( WIT H T HE NOTATI ON “ SUM MAR Y ORDE R ”). A

PA RTYCI TING A

SU MMA RY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E A CO PY OF IT ON ANYPA RTYNO T R

EPR ESENTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 

### At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 2 day of February, two thousand and ten. nd



### Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges , MARK R. KRAVITZ, *



### District Judge .

_______________________________________________ ANDRES BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 08-4698-cv A.D.A. ADRIENNE LLOYD, A.D.A. OLIVIA ROSARIO, Defendants-Appellees, CITY OF NEW YORK, GEOVANA REYES, DELIA SANTIAGO, TATYANA PICO, AND DENICE VIVA, Defendants.

_______________________________________________

### 2

For Plaintiff-Appellant: ANDRES BRYAN, pro se , Brooklyn, New York. For Defendants-Appellees: PAMELA SEIDER DOLGOW, The City of New York Law Department, Appeals Division, forMichael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J. ). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION , it is hereby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , 2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District 3 Court for the Eastern District of New York be and hereby is 4 AFFIRMED . 5 Andres Bryan appeals from the district court’s judgment 6 granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. 7 § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 8 the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on 9 appeal. 10 This Court reviews “ de novo a district court’s dismissal 11 of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the 12 complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in 13 the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences 14 in the plaintiff's favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 15 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). To survive a motion to 16 dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.Pl ain tif f a ppe ars to as ser t f or the fi rst ti me in his no tic e o f 1 app eal th at he didno t r ece ive a cop y o f t he dis tri ct cou rt’ s o rde r w arn ing himth at the co mpl ain t a gai nst de fen dan ts Geo van a R eye s, Del ia San tia go, Tat yan a P ico , a nd Den ise Vi va wou ld be dis mis sedun les s t hos e d efe nda nts wer e s erv ed by Dec emb er 10, 20 07, or pl ain tif f d emo nst rat ed goo d c aus e f or fai lin g t o t ime ly eff ect se rvi ce of pro ces s. Ev en if tru e, tha t w oul d n ot exc use pl ain tif f’s fa ilu re to eff ect se rvi ce for ov er a y ear af ter th e fil ingof th e c omp lai nt. “ [P] art ies ha ve an obl iga tio n t o m oni tor th e doc ket sh eet to in for m t hem sel ves of th e e ntr y o f o rde rs. ” U.S . e x r el. McA lla n v . C ity

of N. Y. , 2 48 F.3 d 4 8, 53 (2dCi r. 200 1).



### 3 1 Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also 2 Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). 3 Although all allegations contained in the complaint are 4 assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal 5 conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 6 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the 7 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 8 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged.” Id . 10 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of 11 the record in light of these principles, we affirm the 12 district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons 13 stated by the district court in its thorough and well14 reasoned opinion. 1 

### 15 16 17 18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20 21