Appeal from a September 9, 2011 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge).
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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of May, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT: JOSE A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Demetrius Hill ("plaintiff" or "Hill"), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court's judgment dismissing his complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which had raised claims under: (1) the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution: (2) Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); (3) Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et seq.; (4) and New York state law. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
"We review a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) de novo, accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2012). "To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face." Bank of New York v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). As Hill has proceeded pro se throughout this litigation, we construe his complaint and briefs liberally, interpreting them to raise the strongest claims that they suggest. See Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 2012); Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2010). *fn1
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the District Court's judgment substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Seybert in her thorough and well-reasoned order, dated September 2, 2011.*fn2 See Hill v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 2d 583 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the September 9, 2011 judgment of the District Court and close the case.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan ...