1 15-1091 Ajamu Uwadiegwu v. Department of Socia l Services of the County of Suffolk
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 LO CAL 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 Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, New York, on the 14 th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge , RALPH K. WINTER, JOHN M. WALKER, Circuit Judges.

________________________________________________ AJAMU UWADIEGWU, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 15-1091
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, JOHN F. O’NEILL, acting DSS Commissioner, indivi dually and in his official capacity, THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, JOHN HARDER, Defendants-Appellees ,2 JOHN DOES, 1-3, certain caseworkers and/or employees of the County of Suffolk, and/or DSS, currently unknown, Defendants

.

________________________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: V ESSELIN M ITEV , John Ray, Ray, Mitev & Associates, Miller Place, New York. For Defendants-Appellees: C HRISTOPHER M. G ATTO , Assistant County Attorney for Dennis M. Brown, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, New York.
Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiff-appellant Ajamu Uwadiegwu appeal s from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of New York (Wexler, J. ) dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review. “A district court’s dismissal of a complain t under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de

novo , accepting all factual allegations as true and dr awing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Orlander v. Staples, Inc. , 802 F.3d 289, 294 n.4 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “[W]e may affirm an appealed decision ‘on any ground which finds support in the record, regardless of the ground upon which the trial court relied.’” Garcia v. Lewis , 188 F.3d 71, 75 n.2 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Reid v. Senkowski , 961 F.2d 374, 378 (2d Cir. 1992)).3 Uwadiegwu argues that he has a constitutiona lly protected liberty in terest in visitation rights with his children. The children have b een removed from his custody, and he has been granted monitored visitation rights. However, he claims that defendants interfered with those rights by aiding the mother in moving the children to Mississippi. He claims that this interfered with his visitation rights, violating his proce dural and substantive due process rights. Uwadiegwu’s claim fails even if we assume th at he has such a liberty interest, an issue we have never resolved, but on which so me courts have ruled in his favor. See, e.g. , Brittain v.
Hansen , 451 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2006); Prisco v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 851 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 1988) overruled on other grounds by Acierno v. Cloutier , 40 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 1994); Franz v. United States , 707 F.2d 582, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1983) supplemented , 712 F.2d 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Ruffalo v. Civiletti , 539 F. Supp. 949, 952 (W.D. Mo. 1982) aff’d sub nom. Ruffalo by Ruffalo v. Civiletti , 702 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1983); Sullivan v. Shaw , 650 A.2d 882, 884 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994); cf. also Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965); United States v. Myers , 426 F.3d 117, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005). First, the individual defendants are entit led to qualified immunity on Uwadiegwu’s procedural due process claim. “Qualified immun ity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Taravella v. Town of Wolcott , 599 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gilles v. Repicky , 511 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2007)). Uwadiegwu appears to argue that he was enti tled to notice and a hearing before defendants interfered with his visitation right s. We have previously explai ned, however, that “[t]here is no authority for the proposition that . . . a non-custodia l parent ha[s] a clearly established right to a4 pre-termination hearing before suspension of whatever visitation rights she might have,” Young v. Cnty of Fulton , 160 F.3d 899, 903 (2d Cir. 1998), and Uwadiegwu fails to identify any intervening change in the law that would alter that conclusion. Second, Uwadiegwu’s procedural due proce ss claim against defendants Department of Social Services of the County of Suffolk (“DSS” ) and the County of Suffolk (the “County”) fail because he does not offer any factual allegations th at could give rise to m unicipal liability. “[A] municipality can be held liabl e under Section 1983 if the depriv ation of the plaintiff’s rights under federal law is caused by a governmental cust om, policy, or usage of the municipality.” Jones v. Town of E. Haven , 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012). “Absent such a custom, policy, or usage, a municipality cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior basis for the tort of its employee.” Id. Here, Uwadiegwu’s allegations that D SS (he says nothing about the County) has a policy and practice of discrimina ting against fathers, African Americans, disabled persons, and impoverished persons are entirely conclusory and cannot sa ve his complaint from dismissal. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recita ls of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere concluso ry statements, do not suffice.”). Third, Uwadiegwu’s complaint does not alle ge government misconduct that rises to the level of a substantive due process violation. “To state a claim for a violation of th[e] substantive due process right of custody, a plai ntiff must demonstrate that th e state action depriving him of custody was ‘so shocking, arbitr ary, and egregious that the Du e Process Clause would not countenance it even were it accompanie d by full procedural protection.’” Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. , 654 F.3d 267, 275 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams , 193 F.3d 581, 600 (2d Cir. 1999). We see no reason to appl y a different standard to visitation-based5 claims. Here, Uwadiegwu’s complaint and the documents incorporated therein reveal that Uwadiegwu had been accused of abusing his ch ildren’s mother and that defendants helped Uwadiegwu’s children and their mother move to Mississippi after the ch ildren were removed from Uwadiegwu’s care because of neglect. Simply put, defendants’ conduct under these circumstances does not shock our conscience. Cf. Fitzgerald v. Williamson , 787 F.2d 403, 408 (8th Cir. 1986) (“[I]t does not shock our consci ence or otherwise offend our judicial notions of fairness to hear that caseworkers responsible for an allegedly abus ed child arranged for the child to be examined by a psychologist and, after recei ving confirmation of child abuse, reduced the parents’ visitation rights and permitted the child to remain with her foster parent when the foster parent moved out of the pa rents’ geographical area.”). We have considered all of Uwadiegwu’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK