Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES ( 2023 )

22-547-cv
Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 13th day of March, two thousand twenty-three.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
Circuit Judges.
RAYMOND ZDUNSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant, 22-547-cv
v.
ERIE 2-CHAUTAUQUA-CATTARAUGUS BOCES,
DAVID O’ROURKE, in his official capacity, JOHN
O’CONNOR, in his official capacity, BRIAN
LIEBENOW, LAURIE BERGER, TRACY SMITH-
DENGLER,
Defendants-Appellees.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: KRISTINA S. HEUSER, Kristina S. Heuser,
PC, Locust Valley, N.Y.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: ADAM C. FERRANDINO, Feldman Kieffer,
LLP, Buffalo, N.Y.
1
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York (Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the February 16, 2022 judgment of the District Court be
and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond Zdunski appeals from the February 16, 2022 judgment of the
District Court denying his motion to compel discovery and granting summary judgment to
Defendants-Appellees. Zdunski generally alleges that Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES
unlawfully terminated him and discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
appeal.
We review the District Court’s denial of Zdunski’s motion to compel discovery for abuse of
discretion. See Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014). Zdunski’s counsel
failed to comply with the District Court’s scheduling orders and discovery deadlines and offered no
compelling justifications for her admitted failure to do so. The District Court acted well within its
discretion when it denied Zdunski’s motion to compel discovery, and we therefore affirm the
District Court’s denial of that motion.
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party.” El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931, 933 (2d Cir. 2010). Based on our de
novo review, the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of
Zdunski’s claims. Zdunski failed to point to “sufficient evidence favoring” him that would allow “a
jury to return a verdict” for him on any of his claims. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
249 (1986). We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed all of the arguments raised by Zdunski on appeal and finding them to be
without merit, we AFFIRM the February 16, 2022 judgment of the District Court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
2