Case ID: f-appx_378/html/0021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Courtney GOODEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, William Barber, Supt. Unified School District # 1 i/o, Marcia Wade, former principal, J.B. Gates C.I., i/o, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-3699-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 20, 2010.
    Courtney Gooden, Waterford, CT, pro se.
    Maria A. Santos, Assistant Attorney General, (Josephine S. Graff, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Hartford, CT, for Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT D. SACK, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SECOND AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting Appellee Barber’s motion to dismiss his complaint as to all Appellees on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and failure to prosecute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We reject Appellant’s argument that this Court should grant him leave to amend his complaint. First, courts of appeal do not generally consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). Second, the power to grant such leave is reserved to the district court. See Fed. R.Civ.P.l (explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern district court proceedings), 15(a)(2) (providing for amendment with consent or leave of court). Third, the district court did afford Appellant an opportunity to amend in its order dismissing the case, but Appellant did not do so.

Appellant has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing his complaint by failing to address that order in his original brief. See Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145, 155-56 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004) (this Court generally does not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, it is abandoned). In any event, we find no error in the district court’s carefully-reasoned conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.