Golden v. N.Y. City Dep't of Envtl. Prot. ( 2009 )

08-5846-cv
Golden v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Envtl. Prot.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED
AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT
CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION
MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).”
UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE
PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER
WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT
DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 15 th day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 Circuit Judge,
10 J. GARVAN MURTHA,
11 District Judge. *
12
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
14 MICHAEL F. GOLDEN,
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.- 08-5846-cv
18
19 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
21 Defendant-Appellee.
*
J. Garvan Murtha, Senior District Judge of the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting
by designation.
1
1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
2
3 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Michael Golden, pro se,
4 Massapequa, New York.
5
6 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Ronald E. Sternberg, City of New
7 York Law Department, New York,
8 New York.
9
10
11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
12 Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.).
13
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
16 AFFIRMED.
17
18 Michael Golden appeals from an order dismissing his
19 complaint pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. We
20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
21 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
22
23 In 2007, the district court granted summary judgment to
24 defendant New York City Department of Environmental
25 Protection on Golden’s complaint alleging a violation of,
26 inter alia, the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C.
27 §§ 2601-2654. Golden thereafter filed a new complaint in
28 which he raised effectively the same FMLA claim that the
29 court dismissed in 2007.
30
31 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the
32 district court’s opinion. See Golden v. N.Y. City Dep’t of
33 Envtl. Prot., No. 08-civ-1513, 2008 WL 4344524 (S.D.N.Y.
34 Sept. 16, 2008).
35
36 Finding no merit in Golden’s remaining arguments, we
37 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
38
39
40 FOR THE COURT:
41 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
42 By:
43
44
45 ___________________________
2