UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER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 3rd day of December, two thousand and four.

PRESENT:

Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge, Hon. Robert D. Sack, Hon. Peter W. Hall, Circuit Judges.

BARRY L. BOSSHOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, - v. -

No. 04-0378

BRIAN S. VLIEG, Employment Readiness Specialist, WILLIE A. HAMMETT, Vice President for Student Services, Defendants-Appellees, MEMBER THREE, Probable Cause Board, 1999, JOHN L. BUONO, Hudson Valley Community College, MEMBER ONE, Probable Cause Board, APPEARING FOR APPELLANT BARRY L. BOSSHOLD, pro se, Hoosick Falls, NY APPEARING FOR APPELLEE VINCENT E. POLSINELLI, Nixon Peabody LLP (Andrew C. Rose, on the brief), Albany, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge).

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

Plaintiff-appellant Barry L. Bosshold appeals from an order of December 4, 2003 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge), dismissing his complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Familiarity with the facts and procedural background is assumed. We affirm.

On appeal, Bosshold challenges the district court's conclusions that (1) his claims were time-barred, and (2) in any event, he had failed to state a claim. Both arguments are without merit. First, all of Bosshold's claims were time-barred, see Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir. 1994); Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir. 1993). Second, even if his claims were not time-barred, they were not sufficiently alleged. Bosshold does not allege actual injury as to his First Amendment claim. See Colombo v. O'Connell, 310 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir. 2002). His allegations of harassment and "false allegations" do not constitute cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C 1983. See Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 n.7 (2d Cir. 1973), overruled on other grounds, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). Finally, Bosshold fails to allege class-based discriminatory animus. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Mian, 7 F.3d at 1087. His complaint was therefore properly dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk By:

Lucille Carr, Deputy Clerk