14‐1714
Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y.
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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of September, two thousand
fifteen.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
CARMEN M. SEGARRA,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 14‐1714
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL SILVA,
MICHAEL KOH, JOHNATHON KIM,
Defendants ‐ Appellees.
____________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: Linda J. Stengle, Stengle Law, Boyertown, PA.
FOR APPELLEES: Thomas C. Baxter, Jr., David Gross, Thomas M. Noone,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, New York, NY;
Richard F. Hans, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Abrams, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff‐Appellant Carmen Segarra filed a whistleblower claim against her
former employer, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and three of its
employees. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit by memorandum‐opinion
dated April 23, 2014, and order dated April 24, 2014. Plaintiff now appeals.
Segarra argues principally on appeal that the First Amended Complaint
should not have been dismissed because it sufficiently pleaded that Segarra was
fired for reporting various unlawful acts.1 We agree with the district court that
Segarra failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, her
proposed Second Amended Complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the First
1 We find that the arguments Segarra raises for the first time in her reply brief are
inadequately presented on appeal. Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998).
2
Amended Complaint. We have considered Segarra’s remaining arguments and
conclude that they are without merit.
For the reasons stated above and in the accompanying per curiam
opinion,2 the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2 As to the accompanying per curiam, Judge Kearse concurs in result only.
3