Case Name: Jerome McKOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, and National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 218 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 06-3660-cv
Parties: Jerome McKOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, and National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
Jerome McKOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, and National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-3660-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2007.
Jerome McKoy, pro se, Staten Island, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Wendy H. Waszmer, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, and Kathy S. Marks, As sistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee John E. Potter.
Eyad Asad (Peter Herman, on the brief), Cohen, Weiss, and Simon, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Jerome McKoy appeals pro se from a judgment of the District Court granting defendant-appellees' motions for dismissal of plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the ground that (1) the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that (2) plaintiffs claims were precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. See McKoy v. Potter, 06 Civ. 1186, 2006 WL 1676475 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2006). Plaintiffs complaint purported to "appeal" an earlier judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs complaint in a prior action. See McKoy v. Potter, et al., 01 Civ.1984(SHS), 2002 WL 31028691 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) (Sidney H. Stein, Judge), aff'd, 98 Fed.Appx. 28 (2d Cir.2004). In his initial action, plaintiff alleged, inter alia, race discrimination and disparate treatment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
We have reviewed plaintiffs claims and, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Chin's careful and comprehensive opinion, we find each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, and DENY plaintiffs motions for a preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, and "sanction" for "default."