Case Name: Dennis LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDERHILL WIPING CLOTH, Rural Metro Ambulance, Defendants, United States of America, City of Buffalo, City of New York, CCNY, Dime Savings Bank, RJD Security Co., FJC Security Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-11
Citations: 13 F. App'x 62
Docket Number: Docket No. 00-6374
Parties: Dennis LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDERHILL WIPING CLOTH, Rural Metro Ambulance, Defendants, United States of America, City of Buffalo, City of New York, CCNY, Dime Savings Bank, RJD Security Co., FJC Security Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Present MINER, LEVAL, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 62–62

Head Matter:
Dennis LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDERHILL WIPING CLOTH, Rural Metro Ambulance, Defendants, United States of America, City of Buffalo, City of New York, CCNY, Dime Savings Bank, RJD Security Co., FJC Security Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 00-6374.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 11, 2001.
Dennis Lee, New York, NY, pro se.
Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.
Andrew D. O’Toole and Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
David R. Hayes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael B. Risman, Corporation Counsel of the City of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Present MINER, LEVAL, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Dennis Lee appeals from a judgment dismissing his amended complaint. We find no error in the district court's decision that much of Lee's claim has already been dismissed with prejudice. See Lee v. United States, No. 98 Civ. 7883(SAS), 1999 WL 335830 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 1999). In any event, his amended complaint did not comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.