McDonough v. Smith

17-296-cv

McDonough v. Smith

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, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of November, two thousand nineteen.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

REENA RAGGI,

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges. ________________________________________________

EDWARD G. MCDONOUGH,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 17-296-cv YOUEL SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF

RENSSELAER, NEW YORK, AKA TREY SMITH,

Defendant-Appellee,

JOHN J. OGDEN, RICHARD MCNALLY JR., KEVIN

MCGRATH, ALAN ROBILLARD, COUNTY OF

RENSSELAER, JOHN F. BROWN, WILLIAM A.

MCINERNEY, KEVIN F. O’MALLEY, DANIEL B.

BROWN, ANTHONY J. RENNA,

Defendants. _______________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: BRIAN D. PREMO, Premo Law Firm PLLC, Albany, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: THOMAS J. O’CONNOR, Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O’Connor, LLP, Albany, NY.

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and the cause be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our decision in McDonough v. Smith, 898 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2018), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. See McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 204 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2019).

We now VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.1 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court