Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.. -.J ..... ... .... ,.., ..... ,...-___,-...,.L i_L.-............,----.;..M.._M..1w..____...._,...M.“..-._swL,@M.*,H.,,.".___;_._ ... . . ______J___L,§,____|
.. . _ I -·Case 3:03-cv-00608-AVC Document 28 Filed 05/23/2005 (El'? I Hkrtéwd GT! I
I ._ ‘ ` I I Og-qq,·.0(¤o,°
A ' ( ‘ A / /‘ Cavt “° l
li; =·]"’°‘=·- J Tin l {
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ,,,5..; .I . [_ g A
Fon THE SECOND CIRCUIT ‘ “l ’ =· · -=¤’ M ll I
I . . , I
SUMMARYORDER V ` " I
l THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER
AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS ORANY OTHER
J COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER l
COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY _
CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the g_g;_h
day of March , two thousand and five.
Present: HON. JON O. NEWMAN,
HoN. RICHARD C. WESLEY, l I
HoN. PETER W. HALL, caxsai?-· COURT Orxfp
Circuit Judges, ’_§ t= l LE rp log I
. $5 .r‘
AR 2 S ¤¤
` ` Q? !
J our: P. NAIDEN, ` 4%’°’¤¤¤g_ ,,,,,d(,,,w¤ Lg _
S COND Glaco 2
PlaintWAppeIlant, T I
— V — (04-2422) U
,EcoLAB, INC.,
Defendantdppellee. l
·l
»-M-——-—— al
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: GARFIELD GOODRUM, Boston, Massachusetts (John
P. Naiden, pro se, Arlington, Vermont, on the I
briefs).
P P ` ”Ap,}Qm·{l{g” rm 1j¢r¢¤dal{£§l}xl§»Q1éE§§ RPPRPPRP F M i{R1jél%}iP§PPLLi5hartford, ‘ I
Connecticut. I
-»»-»—-- - @1
1 (
A
`_1ssUED AS MANDA'TE/W ' 6 ?ll¤5 “' I
Illnn - .....__' ` " ,` `‘‘‘

‘ ‘‘‘· Q - .. .. .. _
_

| !
it ` ' f .`Case-3:03-cv-00608-AVC Document 28 Filed 05/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 H
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J).
` 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND \
2 DECREED that the judgment ofthe district court be AFFIRMED. _
n
I
3 Familiarity bythe parties is assmned as to the facts, the procedural context, and the `
4 specification of appellate issues. Appellant John Naiden filed a complaint against defendant, i
i F
5 alleging age discrimination under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
6 _ § 623, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, and,
7 under Connecticut law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
i E
8 emotional distress, and intentional or negligent physical injury. The district court granted I
9 summary judgment to defendant on all counts. [
10 Naiden raises two arguments on appeal. First, he claims that the district court improperly
i
11 dismissed his claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act for failure to timely l
n
12 file his complaint. Second, Naiden argues that he made sufficient allegations to support his
13 claims for the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We find both of these _
14 arguments without merit and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by Judge Covello.
15 . Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
16 ‘ I
17 For the Court ;
18 Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk ¥ l
.-- ...... ...19 .. .. ..... r . . _______ _ _________ ..... . ......... . . I _. to _ _ ____ __ _____
20 ·
21 A TRUE COPY _
22 Roseamr B . MacKechn1`e, CLERK " Byr - _
by 1 ·· . _
mag 7 Y cram 2 7
i l
ttaattt I P i

I I
ig} ` Case 3:03-cv-00608-AVC Document 28 Filed 05/23/2005 Page 3 of 3 - __; _
I UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS me <>¤U*1T0I¤,,,,, A
Q3 F I L E o »<> · I
II`o1· the ,3 ti`; ,
SECOND CIRCUIT 41* ~’
:3 I~IAt162005*~¤
’ $5 ` PW I
Jonri P. NAIDEN, ; y COND GI
. I | `
Plaintiff-/Appellant, _ : DOCKET NO. 04-2422 I
ECOLAB, INC., `
Defendant-/kppellee. APRIL 8, 2005
- : I
2 I
T“T“**————·········——···Y—···"·* . I
. I
‘ APPELLEE’S ITEMIZED AND VERIFIED BILL OF COSTS
I Counsel for Appellee, Ecolab, lnc., respectfully submits, pursuant to Rule 39(c) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to
I prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the Appellant, John P. Naiden, and in favor
of Appellee, Ecolab, Inc., for insertion in the mandate. Appellee received the Summary Order in
this matter via mail on March 31, 2005 and therefore submits this Bill of Costs within 14 days.
I
Cost of printing brief (necessary copies: 10) I I
1580pages @$0.11 $173.80 I I
1770 Velo Punches @ $0.03 $ 53.10
_ 60 card stock @$0.05 $ 3.00 ,
30 binding @ $2.00 $ 60.00
. - 100 tabs @ $0.25 $ 25.00
Total cost: $314.90 y
STATEMENT OF COSTS _
Taxed In the amount of "1 favcl Rf I
sesame B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk