Case Name: Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McENTEE, John Seferian, The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 37, AFSCME, Stanley Hill, Martin Lubin, Mark Shaplo, Robert Meyer, Ralph Pepe, Louis Albano, Robert Mariano, Uma Kutwal, Michelle Keller, John Does and Rudolph Giuliani, as Mayor of the City of New York, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-24
Citations: 15 F. App'x 21
Docket Number: No. 01-7082
Parties: Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McENTEE, John Seferian, The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 37, AFSCME, Stanley Hill, Martin Lubin, Mark Shaplo, Robert Meyer, Ralph Pepe, Louis Albano, Robert Mariano, Uma Kutwal, Michelle Keller, John Does and Rudolph Giuliani, as Mayor of the City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Present CABRANES, POOLER and SACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McENTEE, John Seferian, The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 37, AFSCME, Stanley Hill, Martin Lubin, Mark Shaplo, Robert Meyer, Ralph Pepe, Louis Albano, Robert Mariano, Uma Kutwal, Michelle Keller, John Does and Rudolph Giuliani, as Mayor of the City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7082.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 24, 2001.
Roy Commer, Staten Island, NY, pro se.
Barry I. Levy; Gina M. Fonseca, of counsel, Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Aronowitz, Levy & Fox, LLP, New York, NY, for appellees.
Present CABRANES, POOLER and SACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff pro se Roy Commer timely appeals from an order entered by the District Court on November 15, 2001 that denied his motion for a preliminary injunction ("the motion"). For substantially the reasons stated in Judge Sweet's comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, see Commer v. McEntee, 121 F.Supp.2d 388 (S.D.N.Y.2000), we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See generally Zervos v. Verizon, 252 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir.2001) ("we review a district court's decision on a motion for preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion"). Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.