Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pearl ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA, N.A., Sears/Citicards Citibank, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
    No. 08-5217-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 3, 2010.
    Pearl Robinson, Comstock, NY, pro se Appellant.
    Richard P. Kaye, (Holly Froum, of counsel) Ellenoff Grossman & Schole, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and EVAN J. WALLACH, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Pearl Robinson, pro se, appeals from the July 31, 2008 judgment of the District Court, granting summary judgment to defendants, Citibank, South Dakota, N.A. and Sears/Citicards Citibank (“Citibank”) on plaintiffs claims and granting summary judgment to Robinson on Citibank’s counterclaim. On appeal, Robinson argues that there are material facts that support a finding that Citibank negligently managed her account when handling a disputed charge, leading to financial and emotional difficulties. Citibank does not appeal the District Court’s judgment in favor of Robinson on their counterclaim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the ease.

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, “drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c). “[Cjonclusory statements or mere allegations,” however, are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

We have considered Robinson’s argument and find it to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order, we affirm the July 31, 2008 judgment of the District Court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.