1

09-4854-cv

Perrotti v. Middlebury

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders

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 “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 Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the thirtieth day of August, two thousand and ten.

PRESENT:

ROGER J. MINER,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

CHESTER J. STRAUB,

Circuit Judges.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

WILLIAM PERROTTI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 09-4854-cv

TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY, EDWARD ST. JOHN, I/O,

HARWOOD LOOMIS, I/O, THOMAS O’LOSKEY, I/O,

JEAN DONEGAN, I/O,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
2

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: CRAIG T. DICKINSON, Dickinson & Mallow,

Waterbury, CT.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: SCOTT M. KARSTEN, Karsten, Dorman & Tallberg, 

LLC, West Hartford, CT. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

(Warren W. Eginton, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant William Perrotti (“Perrotti” or “plaintiff”) appeals from a judgment of the

District Court filed November 2, 2009 dismissing his claims againt defendants Town First Selectman

Edward St. John; architectural consultant Harwood Loomis; Town Building Department Official

Thomas O’Loskey; and Town Zoning Enforcement Officer Jean Donegan (jointly, the

“defendants”) for alleged violations of Perrotti’s First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. In his complaint, Perrotti asserts that defendants interfered with the zoning and permit

approval process required for the expansion of his restaurant, such that (1) he was denied the equal

protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) he suffered retaliation for

political activity protected by the First Amendment, and (3) he was denied due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment. 

On January 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In a Memorandum

of Decision on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed November 2, 2009, the District

Court granted this motion and dismissed all claims by Perrotti. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the remaining facts and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in

the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and drawing all inferences in the plaintiff’s

favor. See, e.g., Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, the plaintiff failed

to produce evidence sufficient to foreclose summary judgment. Among other problems, we note

that the allegations put forth in Perrotti’s brief are almost completely unsupported by references to

the factual record. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 48–50 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s First

Amendment retaliation claim without a single citation to facts in the record); id. at 51-55 (briefing

the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment without a

single citation to facts in the record); id. at 56–62 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment without a single citation to facts in the record). We

find no error in the District Court’s careful and well-reasoned analysis of plantiff’s claims. 
3

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We

AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its Memorandum

of Decision on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Perrotti v. Town of Middlebury, No. 3:06-

CV-01930 (WWE), 2009 WL 3682535 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2009). 

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court