1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

3
4 SUMMARY ORDER
5
6 THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
7 REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO
8 THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION
9 OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE,
10 IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL
11 ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
12
13 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
14 held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th
15 day of November Two thousand four.
16
17 PRESENT:
18 RICHARD J. CARDAMONE
19 JOSÉ A. CABRANES
20 SONIA SOTOMAYOR
21 Circuit Judges
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
23
24 SCOTT HUMINSKI,
25
26 Plaintiff-Appellant,
27
28 -v.- No. 03-7036
29
30 TOWN OF BENNINGTON, VERMONT, RICHARD
31 GUATHIER , STUART HURD , BENNINGTON
32 POLICE DEPARTMENT, VANESSA HAVERKOCH,
33 as a Representative, executor, administrator, or
34 holder of assets of or for Henry Haverkoch or
35 for the Estate of Henry Haverkoch, HENRY
36 HAVERKOCH (deceased),
37
38 Defendants-Appellees.
39
40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
41
42 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: ALAN URIS, Law Office of Alan Uris, (Scott

1
 1 Huminski, pro se, on the brief) Bayside, NY
2
3 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: JAMES F. CARROLL , English, Carroll & Ritter,
4 P.C., Middlebury, VT
5
6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
7 Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Judge).
8

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
11

12 Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment granting summary judgment for defendants.

13 Plaintiff argues on appeal that his federal and state constitutional rights to due process

14 and equal protection of the laws were violated because of various conflicts of interest in the

15 prosecutor’s office. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its Ruling on Cross-

16 Motions for Summary Judgment of November 27, 2002, we hold that none of these challenges

17 rise to the level of reversible error.

18 We have considered all of plaintiff’s claims on appeal and found them to be without

19 merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

20

21

22
23 FOR THE COURT,
24 Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court
25
26
27 By