10-2153-cv
Fallica v. United States
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 15th day of March, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
__________________________________________
RAYMOND J. FALLICA, CHERYL A. WOLF,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 10-2153-cv
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: Raymond J. Fallica, pro se, Wheatley Heights, New
York; Cheryl A. Wolf, pro se, Quogue, New York.
FOR APPELLEE: Varuni Nelson, James H. Knapp, Assistant United
States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States
Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Central Islip,
New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellants Raymond J. Fallica and Cheryl A. Wolf, proceeding pro se, appeal the
district court’s judgment granting the Government’s motion to dismiss their complaint.
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 under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), accepting as true the factual allegations in the
complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Macias v.
Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 2007); Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471,
474 (2d Cir. 2006). Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record
in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the
same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and in the
district court’s decision and order. We have considered Appellants’ arguments on appeal
and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2