Case ID: f-appx_488/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank H. REITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-4103.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 15, 2012.
    George Henry Sallaway, Fayetteville, New York, for Appellant.
    Paula Ryan Conan, Assistant United States Attorney, Syracuse, New York, for Appellee.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Frank H. Reith appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government, dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, the Court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir.1995)). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Reith’s complaint for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.