10-1792-cv Currin v. Williams
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 12 thday of May, two thousand eleven. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 Circuit Judges

. 9 10 11 12 PETER CURRIN, DAVID CURRIN, 13 14 Plaintiffs-Appellant s, 15 16 -v.- 10-1792-cv 17 18 PHARRELL WILLIAMS, NEPTUNES, STAR TRAK ENTERTAINMENT 19 INCORPORATED, RCA RECORDS LABEL, A UNIT OF BMG MUSIC, DBA 20 BMG ENTERTAINMENT, BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT, BAD BOY RECORDS, 21 FKA BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT, 22 23 Defendants , 24 25 ARISTA RECORDS INCORPORATED, SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, 26 27 Defendants-Appellees

. 28 29 30 312 FOR APPELLANT: PETER & DAVID CURRIN, pro se , Bloomfield, 1 CT. 2 3 FOR APPELLEE: TIMOTHY A. DIEMAND (Joseph M. Gillis, on 4 the brief ), Wiggin & Dana LLP, New Haven, 5 CT. 6 7 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 8 District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J. ). 9 10 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 11
**AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 12

**AFFIRMED**
. 13 Appellants Peter and David Currin (“Appellants”) appeal 14 from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 15 District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J. ), which granted 16 summary judgment in favor of Appellees Arista Records and 17 Sony BMG Music Entertainment (“Appellees”). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 19 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 20 We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for 21 default judgment for abuse of discretion, see Pecarsky v. 22 Galaxiworld.com Ltd. , 249 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 2001), 23 bearing in mind that we have expressed a “strong preference 24 for resolving disputes on the merits,” and that “a default 25 judgment is the most severe sanction which the court may 26 apply.” New York v. Green , 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005) 273 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, 1 Appellants’ argument that Appellees defaulted by failing to 2 timely respond to the original, non-operative complaint is 3 belied by the record. On the date on which a response was 4 due, Appellees appeared and requested an extension of time 5 to respond to the complaint. Because the court granted that 6 request, Appellees averted default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 6(b)(1). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying 8 Appellants’ motion for default judgment. 9 We review an order granting summary judgment de novo 10 and ask whether the district court properly concluded that 11 there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the 12 moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 13 See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 14 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine 15 issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all 16 ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in 17 favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” 18 Terry v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory 20 statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to 21 defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York , 316 224 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). 1 Having concluded a de novoreview of the record, we 2 affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to 3 Appellees for substantially the same reasons stated by the 4 district court in its decision and by the magistrate judge 5 in her report and recommendation. The district court 6 properly excluded the purported expert report offered by 7 Appellants in opposition to summary judgment based on their 8 failure to provide the purported expert’s qualifications. 9
See Fed. R. Evid. 702. We have considered Appellants’ 10 remaining contentions and find them without merit. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 12 court is hereby **AFFIRMED** . Additionally, Appellants’ so13 called motion for “default identification” is **DENIED** , as the 14 motion contains no cognizable request for relief. See Fed. 15 R. App. P. 27(a)(2)(A). 16
17 FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 21