Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0503-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barbara J. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia RIVERS, AKA Patricia A. Hamm, AKA Patricia A. Ellis, Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Robert Hamm, AKA Robert D. Hamm, Defendants-Appellees, Aames Funding Corporation, Citi Mortgage Incorporated, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendants.
    17-1189-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    February 8, 2018
    For Plaintiff-Appellant: Barbara J. Riley, proceeding pro se, Jacksonville, Florida.
    For Defendants-Appellees: Curtis V. Trinko, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, New York, New York. Allison M. Funk, Allison J. Schoenthal, Leah Ed-munds, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, New York. Brian P. Scibetta, Richard P. Haber, Buckley Madole, P.C., New York, New York.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara J. Riley, proceeding pro se, appeals from a March 23, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing her quiet title, tor-tious inference with contract, and fraud claims against the defendants. Riley sought to quiet title to real property in Queens, New York, bringing fraud and other claims against various individuals and entities. Riley also alleged that the defendant mortgage lenders had improperly allowed Defendant-Appellee Patricia Rivers to secure loans on the property, which Riley asserted Rivers did not rightfully possess. The district Court dismissed Riley’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. In addition to Riley’s appeal, Rivers moves to submit into the record her retainer agreement with her attorneys. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We begin with Rivers’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. We will consider evidence not before the district court in “extraordinary circumstances.” Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1975); see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (defining the record on appeal as, in relevant part, “the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court”); Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271, 1280 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, material not included in the record on appeal will not be considered.”). Since the retainer agreement Rivers wishes to add to the record was not before the district court and consideration of the exhibit would make no difference in our resolution of this appeal, the “extraordinary circumstances” needed to expand the record are not present. Accordingly, Rivers’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.

Moving on to the merits of Riley’s appeal,- “[w]e review 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.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Riley’s claims. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned September 19, 2016 Report and Recommendation, which was adopted in its entirety by the district court. Additionally, to the extent that Riley alleges that she should have been instructed on how to replead her claims, we discern no error in the proceedings below. Riley twice amended her complaint, and nothing in the record suggests that a third amendment would cure the Second Amended Complaint’s deficiencies. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

We have considered all of Riley’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.