From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riddle v. Claiborne

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 21, 2008
270 F. App'x 82 (2d Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-5848-cv.

March 21, 2008.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellees' motion for the costs of preparing the supplemental appendix is DENIED.

Beverly A. Riddle, pro se, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.

Francis V. Cook (Jonathan Meyers, on the brief) Fox Rothschild LLP, Lawrenceville, N.J., for Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.


SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Beverley Riddle appeals an October 31, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.), which dismissed her claims against Defendants-Appellees Liz Claiborne, Inc. ("LCI"), and several LCI employees. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal.

We affirm the award of summary judgment, substantially for the reasons given in the thorough opinion of Judge Scheindlin.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellees' motion for the costs of preparing the supplemental appendix is DENIED.


Summaries of

Riddle v. Claiborne

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 21, 2008
270 F. App'x 82 (2d Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Riddle v. Claiborne

Case Details

Full title:Beverly A. RIDDLE, Plantiff-Appellant, v. Liz CLAIBORNE, Kelly Robson…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 2008

Citations

270 F. App'x 82 (2d Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Riddle v. Claiborne

Beverly A. RIDDLE, petitioner, v. Liz CLAIBORNE, et al.Case below, 270 Fed.Appx. 82. *406 Petition for writ…

Jiggetts v. Diaz

However, the BOE argues, correctly, that Ms. Diaz, as an employee of the BOE, may not be held individually…