Bryan v. City of New York

SUMMARY ORDER
Andres Bryan appeals from the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his
42 U.S.C. § 1988
complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
This Court reviews
“de novo
a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.”
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,
282 F.3d 147, 152
(2d Cir.2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570
,
127 S.Ct. 1955
,
167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007);
see also Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93-94
,
127 S.Ct. 2197
,
167 L.Ed.2d 1081
(2007) (per curiam). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
— U.S. —, —,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
,
173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009). A claim will have “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.”
Id.
Having conducted an independent and
de novo
review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
1
1
. Plaintiff appears to assert for the first time in his notice of appeal that he did not receive a copy of the district court's order warning him that the complaint against defendants Geovana Reyes, Delia Santiago, Tatyana Pico, and Denice Viva would be dismissed unless those defendants were served by December 10, 2007, or plaintiff demonstrated good cause for failing to timely effect service of process. Even if true, that would not excuse plaintiff's failure to effect service for over a year after the filing of the complaint. "[P]arties have an obligation to monitor the docket sheet to inform themselves of the entry of orders.”
U.S. ex rel. McAllan v. City of N.Y.,
248 F.3d 48
, 53 (2d Cir.2001).