Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael MATHIE IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert DENNISON, as Commissioner and Chairman, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 07-4219-pr (L), 08-5924-pr (Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 17, 2010.
    Michael Mathie, Malone, NY, pro se.
    Diane Winters, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Michael Mathie, pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with regard to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging the defendants’ denial of his parole applications and also appeals the district court’s post-judgment order denying Appellant’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.Bd 147 (2d Cir.2002); see also Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Furthermore, we review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and ask 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. See Miller, 321 F.3d at 300. A district court may convert a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion provided that the court gives “sufficient notice to an opposing party and an opportunity for that party to respond.” Groden v. Random House, Inc., 61 F.3d 1045, 1052 (2d Cir.1995). Here, the district court’s conversion of the motion was appropriate because Appellant was provided sufficient notice of the possible conversion to have not been taken by surprise, and had the opportunity, of which he took advantage, to file additional evidence. See In re G & A Books, Inc., 770 F.2d 288, 294-95 (2d Cir.1985).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s complaint and grant of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order. Furthermore, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion because Appellant failed to show “exceptional circumstances” warranting reconsideration of the district court’s order, either on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2008).

We have considered all of Appellant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order of the district court are AFFIRMED.