1

09-4854

- cv P erro tti v . M idd leb u ry UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

Ru li ng s b y s um mar

y o rd er do n ot h ave pr ece de nt ia l e ff ect . C it ati onto su mma ry o rd ers fi le d o n o r af

ter Ja nu ary 1, 200 7, is p erm it ted

an d i s g ov ern edby

Fe de ral Ru le of Ap pe ll ate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with t his c our t, a part y 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 f or the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Un ited States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, inthe City of New York, on the thirtieth day of Augu st, two thousand and ten. PRESENT: R OGER J. M I NER , J OSÉ A. C AB RANES , C HEST ER J. S TR AUB ,

Circuit Judges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x W I L L I AM P ERRO TTI , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v. No. 09-4854- cv T O W N O F M I DDLEB URY , E DWAR D S T
. J OHN , I/O, H AR WOOD L O O M IS , I/O, T H O M AS O’ L OSKEY , I/O, J EA N D ONEGAN , I/O, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

FO R PL AI NTI FF -A

PP EL LA NT: C R AI G T. D I CK I NS ON , D ic kin so n & Mallo w,

Waterbury, CT. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: S CO TT M. K ARS TEN , Ka rs te n, Do rm an& T allb erg, LLC , W es t H ar tf

or d, CT

. Appeal fr om a j ud gm ent of the United State s District Court for the District of Connecticut (W ar re n W . E gin to n, Ju dg

e ). UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HER EBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AN D D EC REE D th at

th e j ud gm en t o f t he Di st ric t C ou rt is AF FI RM ED

. 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 Departme nt Official Thomas O’Loskey; and Town Zoning Enforcement Officer Jean Donegan (jointly, the “defendants”) for alleged violations of Perrotti’s First Amendment and Fourtee nth Amendme nt rig ht s. In hi s c om pl ai nt , Pe rro tt i a ss er ts th at

de fe nd an ts in te rfe re d w

ith the zo ni ng a nd pe rm it approval process required for the expansion of his restaurant, suc h that (1) he was denied the equal protection of the law s guaranteed by the Fourteenth A mendment, ( 2) he suffered retaliation for political activity prote cted by the First Amendment , and (3) he was de nied due process under the Fou rt ee nth A me nd me nt
. On January 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In a Memorandum of Decision on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed Novem ber 2, 2009, the District Court granted this motion and dismissed all claims by Perrotti. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the rem aining facts and procedural history of the c ase. We review a district

court’s grant of summary judgment de no vo , c on st ruin g t he ev

id en ce in th e r ec or d i n the lig

ht mo st fa vo ra bl e t o the pl ai nt

iff an d d ra wi ng all i nfe re nc es inth e p lain ti ff’ s fa vo r. Se e, e.

g. , Jeffreys v. City of New York , 426 F.3d 5 49, 553 (2d Cir. 2 005). Here, the plaintiff failed to produce evidenc e sufficient to foreclose summa ry judgment. Among other problems, we note that the allegations put forth in Perrotti’s brief are almost complet ely unsupported by re ferences to th e f ac tu al re co rd

. Se e, e.

g., Ap pe lla nt ’s Br

. at 48–50 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s First Am en dm en t r et al

ia ti oncl ai m w

it ho ut a s in gle ci ta ti onto fa ct s i n the re co rd ); id. at 51-55 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of equal protec tion under the Fourtee nth Amendme nt without a si ngl e c it at

io n t o fa ct s i n the re co rd

); id

. at 56–62 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of due process under the Fourteenth Ame ndment without a single citation to fact s in the record). We fin d n o e rro r inth e D is tr

ic t C ou rt ’s ca re ful

an d w ell-r ea so ne d a naly si s o f pl an ti ff’ s c laim s.3 CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiff’ s arguments and find them to be without merit. We AF FI RM the judgment of the D istrict Court substant ially for the reasons state d in its Memorandum of D ec is io n o n D ef

en da nt s’ Mo ti onfor

Su mm ary J ud gm en t, Perrotti v. Town of Middlebury , N o. 3:0 6- CV -01 930 (W

WE ), 200 9 W L 36 825 35 (

D. Co nn . N ov . 2, 200 9)

.
FOR THE COURT, Ca th er in e O ’H ag anWo lfe , C le rk o f Co ur t