Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Perro v. Suffolk County Police Department, 109 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 109 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 101 F.3d 109 NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23. Peter PERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Donald A. Mullins, Individually and in his official capacity as Detective (# 793) of the Suffolk County Police Department, Frank Bascile, In
More

101 F.3d 109

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.

Peter PERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Donald A. Mullins,
Individually and in his official capacity as Detective (#
793) of the Suffolk County Police Department, Frank Bascile,
Individually and as a Police Officer (# 3353) of the County
of Suffolk and the Office of the Suffolk County Police
Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Anthony J. Ferri, individually and in his official capacity
as a former Detective (# 529) of the Suffolk
County Police Department, Defendant.

No. 95-2621.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 26, 1996.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:Peter J. Perro, Collins, New York, pro se. APPEARING FOR APPELLEE:Robert H. Cabble, Assistant Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, New York.

E.D.N.Y.

AFFIRMED.

Before Honorable J. DANIEL MAHONEY, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

1

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was taken on submission.

2

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

3

Plaintiff-appellant Peter Perro appeals pro se from an order entered August 3, 1995 that dismissed his claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, and unreasonable search pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Perro v. Guido, No. CV 92-2657, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 1995). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of the district court. See id. at 3-5.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer