Case Name: John POSITANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd ZIMMER, Todd Zimmer and Associates, Margaret Gade, Liz Smith, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-17
Citations: 581 F. App'x 55
Docket Number: No. 14-283
Parties: John POSITANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd ZIMMER, Todd Zimmer and Associates, Margaret Gade, Liz Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
John POSITANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd ZIMMER, Todd Zimmer and Associates, Margaret Gade, Liz Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-283.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 17, 2014.
John Positano, Farmingville, New York, pro se.
No appearance.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
In this suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the analog in the Rehabilitation Act, John Positano appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, /.), granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants-appellees Todd Zimmer (his ex-wife's divorce lawyer), Todd Zimmer and Associates (collectively, "Zimmer"), and Margaret Gade (his ex-wife's friend). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
We review de novo a district court's decision to grant judgment on the pleadings. LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir.2009).
Title II of the ADA applies to "the services, programs, or activities of a public entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies to "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The district court determined that Positano's suit under ADA Title II and the Re habilitation Act had not plausibly alleged that defendants Zimmer and Gade were public actors, that they acted under color of law, or that they received federal funding. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Zimmer and Gade were not amenable to suit under these statutes. On our review of the pleadings, we agree for substantially the same reasons as stated by the district court. On appeal, Positano has shown no error in these conclusions.
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Positano's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
. Positano's arguments on appeal reference Title V of the ADA; but Positano (a lawyer) cited only Title II in his complaint. Cf. Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir.2010) (noting that the usual solicitude afforded to pro se litigants does not apply to a lawyer representing himself).