13‐2551 Harvey v. Farber

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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of April, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

GREGORY HARVEY,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ 13‐2551

CHRISTOPHER FARBER, COUNTY SHERIFF, HERKIMER COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants‐Cross Defendants‐Appellees,

CHARLENE MACRI, COUNTY JAIL NURSE PRACTITIONER, HERKIMER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant‐Cross Claimant. _____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: Gregory Harvey, pro se, Ossining, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: Thomas K. Murphy, Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Gregory Harvey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the

District Court’s entry of judgment in favor of Defendants‐Appellees on his 42

U.S.C. ' 1983 claims following a jury trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on

appeal.

Harvey has provided us with no reason to disturb the District Court’s

judgment. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether his trial counsel was

2 ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. It is well established,

however, that, except when faced with the prospect of imprisonment, the Sixth

Amendment right to counsel does not apply in a civil case. See, e.g., Guggenheim

Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum,

(2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Coven,

(2d Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3