Case Name: Daniel SPYCHALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katherine SULLIVAN, individually and in her professional capacity, Daniel Furlong, individually and in his professional capacity, Joseph W. Bellacosa, individually and in his professional capacity, St. John's University School of Law, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-25
Citations: 96 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 03-9036
Parties: Daniel SPYCHALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katherine SULLIVAN, individually and in her professional capacity, Daniel Furlong, individually and in his professional capacity, Joseph W. Bellacosa, individually and in his professional capacity, St. John’s University School of Law, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Present: WINTER, STRAUB, and LAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Daniel SPYCHALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katherine SULLIVAN, individually and in her professional capacity, Daniel Furlong, individually and in his professional capacity, Joseph W. Bellacosa, individually and in his professional capacity, St. John’s University School of Law, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-9036.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 25, 2004.
Daniel Spychalsky, Carle Place, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
Jill L. Rosenberg, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Lisa Swanson, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellees.
Present: WINTER, STRAUB, and LAY, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Spychalsky, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Denis R. Hurley, Judge) entered September 2, 2003, granting defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Spychalsky's complaint. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues that have been raised for appellate review and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its August 29, 2003 Memorandum and Order. See Spychalsky v. Sullivan, No. 2:01cv0958, 2003 WL 22071602 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003).