Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert POINDEXTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-1192-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 23, 2010.
    Robert Poindexter, pro se, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert A. Jacobs, (Benjamin G. Shatz, on the brief), Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT D. SACK, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Robert Poindexter appeals from the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment for Warner/Chappell Music and dismissing his copyright ownership and infringement complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and asks whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 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, this Court is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. We have considered Poindexter’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.