Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 83.5 kB
Pages: 3
Date: July 6, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 739 Words, 4,464 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22491/23.pdf

Download USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut ( 83.5 kB)


Preview USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut
~ —· ~. Case 3:03-cv-00374-HBF Document 23 Filed 06/O2/2005 Peg 1 of CH wt)
Bt Sl- of Conn Hg
. A
O 2> · cv · Bn '~f A
UNITED STATES coURT OF APPEALS `FY+2SImrY1c¤m A
‘ _=A,- A _;A. A N ., A ,L.. A 1=oR THE SECOND CIRCUIT H
DAT e e
f {ri $:,,.,,.,A.,_
I SUMMARY ORDER y
L THIS SUMMARY oRDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO l
THIS OR ANY OTHER coURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF
THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUESEQUENT STAGE OF THIS cASE, IN A ;
RELATED cASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF coLLATERAL ESTOPPEL y
OR RES JUDICATA. H
I
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 1
the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the \q‘h¤ day of _
Pypyf | Two thousand five. A , E
was cow; l
PRESENT: ,__<,<>°`*\A FN-EDT0‘F·1,e g
RALPH K. WINTER § {2;, 1
joSE A. CABRANI-as f L . if, .
ROSEMARY S. POOLER P 9 2005
C` ‘¢ d ° S .
_ zrczrz ju gf! §;1’gvn,g,,K,,h“a¤ A
_""____________________ _______________ X _ ONDCIRCU
JOHN M. DANIELS,]R., .
C
P/afnl{j€Appe//unt, N0. § A
r.st‘. A
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MEDICAL [ _ A M E N
ADVISORY BOARD, GARY]. DEEILIPPO, COMM., Q - L j `U . y
I '.,` Mlm; fh) Rm
Dqfimdrmtx-Appellees. me g A
.............. .. ---- Q ----»»------------- — -x
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: JOHN M. DANIELS,]R.,pm Ja, East Hartford, CT

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: PHILIP MILLER, Assistant Attorney General, (Robert
]. Deichert, Assistant Attorney General, an the brig, p
Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, afmurz.re1),
Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT
A
Q
1 A
' S
'Ieened cas. Ncw~c3.o.’ve=.; 52905 '
I HEHE
L- -e—A-A A A .
` UTR

J U A ` i Case 3:03-cv—OO374-HBF Document 23 Filed 06/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3
` l
_ Appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of `
Connecticut-disnrussuig plaintiffs claims upon defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary j
judgment (Holly B. Fitzsimmons, Magistrate fudge). y
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU-DGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
l
Plaintiff john M. Daniels, jr., appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his case j
upon defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Daniels zz. Dah? qfMaz‘ar V¢·bz's!es, No.
` 3:03CV374(HBF), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6591 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2004). _
The District Court dismissed plaintiffs Title VII claim for failure to State a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) because plaintiff did not allege that he was an employee of defendants’ or that he suffered j
an adverse employment action based on his disability. The Court granted summary judgment on
plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because there was no evidence in the record of
discriminatory animus or ill will. After dismissing all of plaintiffs federal claims, the District Court i
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. We afE.rm the
dismissal of plaintiffs claims for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its Ruling
on Motion to Dismiss and/ or Motion for SU1‘1‘1I1‘.'t2-YY judgment of March 18, 2004. Lal
Plaintiff claims on appeal that the District Court was biased against him. Plaintiff has
provided no evidence of this claim and we see none in the record. Adverse rulings, in and of _
themselves, are not probative of judicial bias. Ljteiéy v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). g
We likewise see no merit in plaintiffs challenges to the District Court’s denial of the motion
for preliminary injunction and the denial of the motion to exclude expert evidence.- I
We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. ‘
We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. _ i U
· l
2
· l
` I

` M ` `“ ' Case 3:03-cv—OO374-HBF Document 23 Filed 06/O2/2005 Page 3 of 3 I
. · R R
R R
FOR THE COURT,
` Roscann B. cKcchn.ic, Clerk of Court R
2

- A
Roseazmz B . 1§§g?Le gP¥ R
, ¤ ey CLERK R
_· ;R>1¥;>¢·w$2" ;*1RRR: __R;< A U· R
‘ R
R
!
l R
R
I
R