ZALASKI v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, 11-3033-cv. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Number: infco20120829104
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2012
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Zalaski appeals from a June 29, 2011 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J. ) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's sole claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, that defendants violated her right to freedom of speech and
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Zalaski appeals from a June 29, 2011 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J. ) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's sole claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, that defendants violated her right to freedom of speech and a..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Zalaski appeals from a June 29, 2011 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's sole claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that defendants violated her right to freedom of speech and assembly under the First Amendment at a demonstration held in October 2006. We assume the parties' familiarity with the pertinent facts and procedural history.
Having previously remanded this case and given the parties a full opportunity to provide additional, relevant information that would illuminate the issues on appeal, see Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Dep't, 613 F.3d 336, 337 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and upon our de novo review of the instant record, we find no material error that would cause us to reverse. See McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as noted.
Source: Leagle
