13-3739

Uciechowski v. Town of Fallsburg

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED

BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. 

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY

MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

14 day of October, two thousand fourteen. th

PRESENT:

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

REENA RAGGI,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________

Joan Uciechowski,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 13-3739

Town of Fallsburg, Ivan Kalter, Matthew R.

Robinson, Tracy Scheuering, AKA Tracy Green,

Brendan Pavese, Jason Berger, County of Sullivan,

and Joey Z. Drillings

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Joan Uciechowski, pro se, Hurleyville, N.Y.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Stephen J. Gaba, Drake, Loeb, Heller, Kennedy, 

Gogerty, Gaba & Rodd PLLC (Adam L. Rodd, on

the brief), New Windsor, N.Y., for Town of
Fallsburg, Ivan Kalter, Matthew R. Robinson, Tracy

Scheuering, AKA Tracy Green, Brendan Pavese,

and Jason Berger

 Thomas J. Cawley, Sullivan County Attorney’s 

 Office, Monticello, N.Y., for County of Sullivan 

and Joey Z. Drillings

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Briccetti, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Joan Uciechowski, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment entered on September 4,

2013, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.)

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing her complaints brought

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district

court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving

party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321

F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences

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 plenary review of the record reveals that the district court properly granted summary

judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the

district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. Additionally, Uciechowski failed to

raise any arguments either with respect to her state law claims or claims based on events

occurring before March 3, 2008. She has therefore waived review of these issues on appeal. See

LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995). 

We have considered all of Uciechowski’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Each side to bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

2