Bradyv.Larimer

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
United States Court of Appeals, Second CircuitJan 23, 2008
262 Fed. Appx. 316 (2d Cir. 2008)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Brady v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    …Petitioner appealed the decision of the District Court, and, on January 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals for…

  • Brady v. Commissioner

    …Petitioner appealed the decision of the District Court, and, on January 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals for…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 07-2229-cv.

January 23, 2008.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, East Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.


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 Boliviano, 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.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.