Hawkins-El v. First American Funding, LLC

12-4021 Hawkins-El v. First American Funding, LLC 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 9th day of July, two thousand thirteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 14 JAMES S. HAWKINS-EL, III, 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 -v.- 12-4021 18 19 FIRST AMERICAN FUNDING, LLC, IRA 20 BAILEY, MARIA GREEN, SONIA LARICCIA, 21 BRANDON BAILEY, 22 Defendants-Appellees.* 23 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 25 26 * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform with the caption above. 1 FOR APPELLANT: James S. Hawkins-El III, pro se, 2 Rockaway Beach, New York. 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: No appearance. 5 6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 7 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.). 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 11 AFFIRMED. 12 13 James Hawkins-El, III, appeals pro se from a judgment 14 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 15 of New York (Irizarry, J.) dismissing his complaint brought 16 pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 17 U.S.C. § 2605, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 18 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the 20 case, and the issues on appeal. 21 22 We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary 23 judgment, with the view that “[s]ummary judgment is 24 appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no 25 genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is 26 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff 27 & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In 28 determining whether there are genuine issues of material 29 fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw 30 all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party 31 against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. 32 Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal 33 quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate 34 “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a 35 rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” 36 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 37 574, 587 (1986). 38 39 Upon such review, we conclude that Hawkins-El’s appeal 40 is without merit substantially for the reasons stated in the 41 district court’s memorandum and order. See Hawkins-El v. 42 First American Fund, LLC, No. 11-cv-2423 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 43 2012, ECF No. 44). We have considered all of Hawkins-El’s 44 remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 2 1 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 2 court is hereby AFFIRMED. 3 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 7 8 9 10 3