Campbell v. City of Binghamton, NY

── Campbell v. City of Binghamton, NY ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General 25-409-cv Campbell v. City of Binghamton, NY 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 TO 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 9th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, RICHARD C. WESLEY, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ David John Campbell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-409 City of Binghamton, NY, City of New York, Jared M. Kraham, The Mayor of Binghamton, New York, Chief Joseph Zikuski, Chief of Binghamton Police Department, Detective Bryan Sostowski, a Detective of Binghamton Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. * _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: David John Campbell, pro se, Binghamton, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Anne M. Nardacci, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. David John Campbell (“Campbell”), proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In 2024, Campbell commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against, inter alia, Defendants-Appellees the City of Binghamton, New York (“Binghamton”), Binghamton Mayor Jared M. Kraham (“Mayor Kraham”), Binghamton Police Department (“BPD”) Chief Joseph Zikuski, and BPD Detective Bryan Sostowski, alleging that Defendants-Appellees illegally searched his home and seized his property in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. After Campbell filed an amended complaint, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action in its entirety without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly. 2 Campbell v. City of Binghamton, N.Y., No. 24-cv-67 (AMN/ML), 2024 WL 5378956 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2024). The district court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and sua sponte dismissed Campbell’s amended complaint without leave to amend. Campbell v. City of Binghamton, N.Y., No. 24-cv-67 (AMN/ML), 2025 WL 341928 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2025). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Courts must “liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the district court’