Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 2, 2022

Douglas v. City Of New York

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:18-cv-09327
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Douglas v. City of New York: Judge Failla granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in full, denied appeal-related fee-free status, and closed the case.

Who this affects

The City of New York and C.O. Carol Garcia received a full grant of their summary-judgment motion. Gregory Douglas’s case was closed, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied.

What happened

In Gregory Douglas v. City of New York and C.O. Carol Garcia, the judgment identifies Douglas as the plaintiff and the City and Garcia as the defendants. The supplied text does not describe the claims or the underlying facts.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied Douglas fee-free status for an appeal, and closed the case.

The judgment states that these rulings were based on the court’s February 1, 2022 Opinion and Order. Judge Katherine Failla is identified in the supplied case information, but that underlying opinion is not included here, so the reasons for the ruling cannot be summarized.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Douglas v. City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-09327
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Feb. 2, 2022

What the judgment says

The judgment names Gregory Douglas as the plaintiff and the City of New York and C.O. Carol Garcia, Shield No. 17515, as the defendants. It refers to the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2022, but that opinion is not included in the supplied text.

Ruling

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in full. Summary judgment is a decision resolving the case without a trial when the governing standard is met. The judgment does not state the claims, facts, or reasons discussed in the February 1 Opinion and Order.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and stated that the case was closed.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment: granted in full.

Appeal-related fee-free status: denied.

Case: closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.