11-4103
Reith 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 TO 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 REENA RAGGI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 Frank H. Reith,
15
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 v. 11-4103
19
20 United States of America,
21
22 Defendant-Appellee.
23 _____________________________________
24
25
26 FOR APPELLANT: George Henry Sallaway,
27 Fayetteville, New York.
28
1 FOR APPELLEE: Paula Ryan Conan, Assistant
2 United States Attorney,
3 Syracuse, New York.
4
5
6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
7 Court for the Northern District of New York (McCurn, J.;
8 Peebles, M.J.).
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
12 AFFIRMED.
13
14 Appellant Frank H. Reith appeals from the district
15 court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
16 Government, dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to the
17 Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671
18 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
19 underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and
20 the issues on appeal.
21
22 This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de
23 novo and focuses on whether the district court properly
24 concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material
25 fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a
26 matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,
27 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether
28 there are genuine issues of material fact, the Court is
29 required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible
30 inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Nationwide
31 Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157,
32 160 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46
33 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir. 1995)). Summary judgment is
34 appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not
35 lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
36 party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
37 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
38
39 After an independent review of the record and relevant
40 case law, we conclude that the district court properly
41 dismissed Reith’s complaint for substantially the same
42 reasons articulated by the district court in its well-
43 reasoned decision.
44
2
1 We have considered Appellant’s arguments on appeal and
2 find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons,
3 the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
4
5
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
8
3