MASAO YONAMINE Plaintiff-Appellant -vCITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICEDEPARTMENT; RAYMOND KELLY Commissioner of theNew York City Police Department; HUGH BRICKLEY Shield Detective of th Precinct Squad; WALTER CLARKShield Detective Queens Homicide; ARNOLDRO... (2nd Cir. 2005)

Federal Circuits, 2nd Cir. (November 04, 2005)

Docket number: 04-3452

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/yonamine-vcity-thenew-clarkshield-arnoldro-20100902
Id. vLex: VLEX-20100902

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Transaero, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, an Agency or Instrumentality of the Republic of Bolivia, a Foreign State, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee., 162 F.3d 724 (2nd Cir. 1998)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Cody, Inc., on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Directors and Members, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Town of Woodbury, John S. Taylor, and Eric Ruscher, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, County of Orange, Defendant., 179 F.3d 52 (2nd Cir. 1999)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

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THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL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 November, two thousand and five.

Present: RALPH K. WINTER,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

SONIA SOTOMAYOR,

Circuit Judges,

MASAO YONAMINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v- (04-3452-pr)

CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT; RAYMOND KELLY, Commissioner of the

New York City Police Department; HUGH BRICKLEY, Shield

2885, Detective of 107th Precinct Squad; WALTER CLARK,

Shield 3118, Detective Queens Homicide; ARNOLD

ROUSSINE, Shield 1525, Detective Queens Crime Scene Unit;

JACK CIPOLLA, Shield 764, Detective Queens Crime Scene

Unit; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF QUEENS COUNTY;

RICHARD A. BROWN, District Attorney, Queens County;

ANDREW ZUCKERMAN, Assistant District Attorney, Queens

County; ELIZABETH FOX, Assistant District Attorney, Queens

County; EMIL BRICKER, Assistant District Attorney, Queens

County,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appearing for Appellant: Masao Yonamine, Pro Se, Stormville, NY

Appearing for Appellees: Marta Ross, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Corporation

Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.).

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

Plaintiff-appellant Masao Yonamine appeals, pro se, from the April 13, 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.), denying plaintiff-appellant's motion to vacate. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review a district court's denial of a motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for abuse of discretion. See Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998). "An appeal from the denial of a 60(b) motion raises only the question of whether that motion was properly disposed; it is not a vehicle for examining the underlying judgment itself." Cody, Inc. v. Town of Woodbury, 179 F.3d 52, 56 (2d Cir. 1999).

Therefore we cannot consider any of Yonamine's assertions challenging the district court's underlying dismissal. In addition, the merits of Yonamine's challenge to the district court's original decision have already been decided by this court in an appeal of that decision.

Yonamine presents no reason why the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate and we can see none.

We have considered all of Yonamine's remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk By: