United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
W. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 77) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall
enter judgment in favor of the defendants as to all claims in
the plaintiff’s complaint.
motion for summary judgment should be granted if the court
determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to
be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such
issue warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of
law.” Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d
196, 202 (2d Cir. 1995)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986)). The burden of showing that no genuine factual
dispute exists rests on the party seeking summary judgment.
See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,
conjecture or speculation by the party resisting summary
judgment does not provide a basis upon which to deny the
motion.” Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758
F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir. 1985). “[T]he plaintiff must
offer concrete evidence raising genuine disputes of material
fact tending to show that his version of events is more than
fanciful,” and “may not rely on conclusory
allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.”
Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d
Cir. 2005). “The mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could
reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a
‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “When opposing parties tell two
different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a
court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes
of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”
JASON, OFFICER McCUE, DETECTIVE INGLESE, INVESTIGATOR RYAN,
DETECTIVE DOLAN, OFFICER D’ANGELO AND SERGEANT
defendants are named in the caption of the complaint and the
complaint contains conclusory allegations, but no specific
allegations, about them. As detailed in the Memorandum in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 77-1) (“Defendants’ Memorandum”),
there is no evidence that these defendants were present when
the plaintiffs spoke with police officers on May 29, 2013 or
when he was arrested on June 30, 2013.
a complaint names a defendant in the caption but contains no
allegations indicating exactly how the defendant violated the
law or injured the plaintiff, a motion to dismiss the
complaint in regard to that defendant should be
granted.” Zavatsky v. Aronson, 130 F. Supp. 2d
349, 358 (D. Conn. 2001) (quoting Dove v. Fordham
Univ., 56 F. Supp. 2d. 330, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). The
same principle applies now, at the summary judgment stage.
these defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
ONOFRIO AND PATROL OFFICER VENDITTO
Arrest and Malicious Prosecution
plaintiff brings claims for false arrest and malicious
prosecution. He contends that his arrest on June 30, 2013 was
the result of an inadequate investigation and false evidence
provided by these defendants, and points to the fact that he
was acquitted after a jury trial in Connecticut Superior
Court. However, “the existence of probable cause is a
complete defense to a . . . claim alleging false arrest or
malicious prosecution.” Garcia v. Gasparri,1 ...