McKnight v. Middleton , 434 F. App'x 32 ( 2011 )

10-1664-cv
McKnight v. Middleton et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER").
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 5th day of October, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
DENNY CHIN,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
ANTHONY JEROME McKNIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 10-1664-cv
DAWN MARIE MIDDLETON et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: ANTHONY JEROME McKNIGHT, pro se,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: DAWN MARIE MIDDLETON, pro se,
Brooklyn, New York.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney
General of the State of New
York, Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General, Benjamin N.
Gutman, Deputy Solicitor
General, and Robert C. Weisz,
Assistant Solicitor General, of
counsel, for Appellees County of
Kings Family Court, Robert
Ratanski, John Doe, State of New
York, Paula J. Hepner, and Other
Unknown Persons, New York, New
York.
LISA L. SHREWSBERRY, Traub
Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry
LLP, for Appellees Harold A.
Mayerson, Mayerson Stutman
Abramowitz Royer LLP, and Sophie
Jacobi, Hawthorne, New York.
JANET NEUSTAETTER, for Appellees
Carol Sherman, Martha
Schneiderman, and The Children’s
Law Center, Brooklyn, New York.
DENNIS J. DOZIS, Kaufman
Borgeest & Ryan LLP, for
Appellees Eileen Montrose and
Louis Lauro, New York, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes,
J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Jerome McKnight
appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). The 130-page Amended Complaint asserted 72 claims
2
against defendants-appellees pursuant to, inter alia, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988, the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and federal and state
wiretapping law, and for unlawful interference with his
rights under a custody agreement, defamation, invasion of
privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts, procedural history of the case, and the issues on
appeal.
This Court reviews de novo the district court's
dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), "construing the complaint liberally,
accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true,
and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
favor." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152
(2d Cir. 2002). The complaint must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although all allegations contained in the complaint are
assumed to be true, this tenet is "inapplicable to legal
conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the
3
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id.
We have conducted an independent and de novo
review of the record in light of these principles. We
affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the
reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and
well-reasoned memorandum order.
We have reviewed McKnight's remaining arguments
and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4