William PERROTTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY, Edward St. John, I/O, Harwood Loomis, I/O, Thomas O'Loskey, I/O, Jean Donegan, I/O, Defendants-Appellees, 391 F. App'x 900

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant William Perrotti (“Perrotti” or “plaintiff’) appeals from a judgment of the District Court filed November 2, 2009 dismissing his claims against defendants Town First Selectman Edward St. John; architectural consultant Harwood Loomis; Town Building Department Official Thomas O’Loskey; and Town Zoning Enforcement Officer Jean Donegan (jointly, the “defendants”) for alleged violations of Perrotti’s First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In his complaint, Perrotti asserts that defendants interfered with the zoning and permit approval process required for the expansion of his restaurant, such that (1) he was denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) he suffered retaliation for political activity protected by the First Amendment, and (3) he was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. On January 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment. In a Memorandum of Decision on Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment filed November 2, 2009, the District Court granted this motion and dismissed all claims by Perrotti. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts and procedural history of the case. We review a district court’s grant of

summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See, e.g., Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir.2005). Here, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to foreclose

summary judgment. Among other problems, we note that the allegations put forth in Perrotti’s brief are almost completely unsupported by references to the factual record.

See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 48-50 (briefing the issue of Perrot-ti’s First Amendment retaliation claim without a single citation to facts in the record); id. at 51-55 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment without a single citation to facts in the record); id. at 56-62 (briefing the issue of Perrotti’s alleged denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment without a single citation to facts in the record). We find no error in the District Court’s careful and well-reasoned analysis of plaintiffs claims.

CONCLUSION We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. We AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its Memorandum of Decision on Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment, Perrotti v. Town of Middlebury, No. 3:06-CV-01930 (WWE), 2009 WL 3682535 (D.Conn. Nov.2, 2009).