Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0812-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilfredo TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-589-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 19, 2011.
    Wilfredo Torres, New York, NY, pro se.
    Amy Ann Barcelo, Assistant United States Attorney, (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Wilfredo Torres, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of S. Afr., 300 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir.2002). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United, States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000).

We do not decide the government’s waiver argument and exercise our discretion to consider Torres’s appeal on the merits. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as those stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation.

We have considered Torres’s additional arguments, including his arguments that the district court improperly denied his request for appointment of counsel and that the magistrate judge exhibited bias against him, and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.