UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of January, two thousand four.

Present: HON. JAMES L. OAKES, HON. JON O. NEWMAN, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

MYRTHA HERNANDEZ and HIRAM HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -v- No. 02-9083

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, VAN WHITE, Appointed Special Counsel to Mayor for Crime and Violence, RAYMOND LITTLEFIELD, Administrator of Code Compliance, ROBERT GRANA, JON REMMEL, PETER SAXE, All Inspectors for the Dept. of Community Development of the City of Rochester, E. WEAVER, Police Sergeant for Goodman Section Police Station and TERRANCE BORSHORFF, Director of the Bureau of Property Conservation, all in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees, WILLIAM JOHNSON, as Mayor of the City of Rochester, ROBERT WARSHAW, Chief of Police for the City of Rochester and UNKNOWN OFFICERS, Patrol Cars 236, 246, 126 and 256 of the Goodman Section Police Station, Defendants.

Submitted For Plaintiffs-Appellants: MYRTHA HERNANDEZ, Pro Se.

Rochester, NY Submitted For Defendants-Appellees: LINDA S. KINGLSEY, Corporation Counsel (Matthew D. Brown, of counsel)

Rochester, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.).

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

Pro se Plaintiffs-Appellants Myrtha and Hiram Hernandez appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.) entered pursuant to a Decision and Order dated July 11, 2002, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1999).

For the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion, we affirm. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

ROSEANN B. MacKECHNIE, CLERK By: