Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Department , 475 F. App'x 805 ( 2012 )

11-3033-cv
Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Department
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO
A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS
GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH
THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 29th day
of August, two thousand twelve.
Present:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
________________________________________________
LISA ZALASKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 11-3033-cv
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT and DEPUTY CHIEF JAMES J. HONIS,
Defendants-Appellees.*
________________________________________________
For Plaintiff-Appellant: DEREK V. OATIS, Lobo & Novak, LLP, Manchester, Conn.
For Defendants-Appellees: BETSY A. EDWARDS, Office of the City Attorney, Bridgeport,
Conn.
*
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as noted.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Zalaski appeals from a June 29, 2011 judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.) granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s sole claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
that defendants violated her right to freedom of speech and assembly under the First Amendment
at a demonstration held in October 2006. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the pertinent
facts and procedural history.
Having previously remanded this case and given the parties a full opportunity to provide
additional, relevant information that would illuminate the issues on appeal, see Zalaski v. City of
Bridgeport Police Dep’t, 613 F.3d 336, 337 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and upon our de novo
review of the instant record, we find no material error that would cause us to reverse. See
McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the judgment
of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
2