Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randolph H. GUTHRIE III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee, Unknown Federal Bureau of Prisons Employees, Defendants.
    
    No. 10-3068-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 10, 2011.
    Randolph H. Guthrie III, pro se, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Alicia M. Simmons, Benjamin H. Tor-rence, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Randolph H. Guthrie III, pro se, appeals from the July 8, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J.), dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews “de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Where a district court dismisses an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court reviews “factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation mark omitted).

After reviewing Guthrie’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.