Brady v. Larimer

Second Circuit

Brady v. Larimer

262 F. App'x 316

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 2008

DocketNo. 07-2229-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 F. App'x 316 (Brady v. Larimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady v. Larimer, 262 F. App'x 316 (2d Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, appeals from an April 24, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a May 8, 2007 order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the arguments on appeal.

This Court reviews the district court’s findings of lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, see Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000), and reviews a district court order granting or denying a motion for relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for abuse of discretion, see Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998); Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1991); Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53, 55 (2d Cir.1989). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Transaero, Inc., 162 F.3d at 729 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Having reviewed the record, we agree that appellant’s complaint should have been dismissed for the reasons stated by the district court. Furthermore, we agree that appellant’s motion for reconsideration should have been denied for the reasons stated by the district court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, appeals from an April 24, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a May 8, 2007 order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the arguments on appeal.

This Court reviews the district court’s findings of lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, see Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000), and reviews a district court order granting or denying a motion for relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for abuse of discretion, see Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998); Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1991); Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53, 55 (2d Cir.1989). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Transaero, Inc., 162 F.3d at 729 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Having reviewed the record, we agree that appellant’s complaint should have been dismissed for the reasons stated by the district court. Furthermore, we agree that appellant’s motion for reconsideration should have been denied for the reasons stated by the district court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. App'x 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-larimer-ca2-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack