13 -37 39

Uciec ho w ski v. T own of Fallsbu rg UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THESECOND CI RCUI T SUMMAR

Y ORDER RULING S BY SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HA VE PRECEDENT IAL EFFECT. CITAT ION TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JA NUARY 1 , 2 00 7, IS PERM ITT ED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APP ELL ATE PROCEDURE 32 .1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCAL RULE 32 .1. 1. WHEN CITING

A SUM M ARY O RDER IN A DO CUM ENT FILE D WITH THIS COUR T, A PAR TY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APP ENDIX OR AN ELE CTRONIC DATABA SE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A P ARTY CITING A SUM M ARY O RDER M UST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRESENTE D B Y COU NSEL.
At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurg ood Marsha ll United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 14 day of Oc tober, two thousand f ourtee n. t h PRES ENT: ROSEMARY S. P OOL ER,

REENA RAGGI , PETER W . HAL L , Circuit Judges
.

_____________________________________ J oan Uc iechowski, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 13-3739 Town of F allsburg , Ivan Ka lter, Matthew R. Robinson, Tracy

Scheuering, A KA Tra cy

Gre en, Br endan Pave se, Jason Berg er, County of Sullivan, and Joey Z . Drillings Defendants-A ppellees
.

_____________________________________ F OR P LAINTIFF -AP P ELL ANT: J oan Uc iechowski, pro se , Hurley ville, N.Y. F OR DEF ENDANTS-AP P ELL EES : Stephen J . Gaba , Drake, L oeb, He ller, Ke nnedy , Gog erty , Gaba

& Rodd PL L C (Adam L . Rodd, on the brief ), Ne w Windsor, N.Y., for Tow n ofFallsburg, Ivan Kalter, Matthew R. Robinson, Tracy Scheue ring, AKA Tr acy Green, Bre ndan Pave se, and Jason Berge r Thomas J . Cawley , Sulli van County Attorney ’s Offic e, Monticello, N.Y., for County of Sull ivan and Joey Z. Drill ings Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (B ricc etti, J

.). UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND DECREED that the judgment of the district cour t is AF F IRMED
. J oan Uc iechowski, proc eeding pro se, a ppeals fr om a judgment enter ed on September 4, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (B ricc etti, J. ) grantingsummary

judgme nt in favor of

the def endants a nd dismiss ing he r complaints brought under 42 U .S.C. § 1983 and New Yor k State law. We assume the pa rties’ fa miliarity with the underlying f

acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, a

nd the issues on appe al. We revieworder s grantingsummary judgme nt de novo and f

ocus on whe ther the district court prope rly

conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and the moving party was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. See M iller v. W olpoff &Abramson, LLP , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). We are require d to resolve a ll ambiguities and dr aw a ll inferenc es in favor of

the nonmovant. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n., Inc

. , 182 F.3d 157, 160 ( 2d Cir. 1999). A plenar y revie w of the r ecord reve als that the district court pr operly grante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the def endants. We af

firm substantially

for the r easons se t forth by the district court in its thorough a nd well-re asoned de cision. Additionally , Uciec howski failed to raise a ny arguments either with re spect to her state law c laims or claims based on e vents occur ringbefor e Mar ch 3, 2008. She has the ref ore w aived r eview of

these issues on appe al. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 ( 2d Cir. 1995). We have c onsidered a ll of Uciec howski’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the judgment of the district cour t. Each side to be ar its own costs. FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk



### 2