BUNTIN v. CITY OF N.Y., 225 Fed.Appx. 28 (2nd Cir. 2007)

Rodgerick BUNTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, City of New York Human Resources Administration, New York City Department of Correction, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-6341-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 29, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court isAFFIRMED.

Jeffrey L. Kreisberg, Kreisberg Maitland, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Drake A. Colley, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief, Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.[*]

[*] The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Page 29

SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Rodgerick Buntin appeals from a decision of the District Court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims that defendants violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, and dismissing without prejudice plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution. Plaintiff, who was employed by defendant City of New York Human Resources Administration, alleged in his complaint that defendants violated his due process rights by failing to send a pre-termination notice to him in prison before terminating his employment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal and the procedural history.

Having carefully reviewed all of plaintiff’s arguments, we affirm the District Court’s decision for substantially the same reasons set forth in that decision.

We have considered all of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.