17-2108-cv Cheeseboro v. Little Richie Bus Serv., Inc. 

## 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 (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO 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 18 th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges , JOHN G. KOELTL, * District Judge .

_____________________________________ Chan Cheeseboro, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 17-2108-cv Little Richie Bus Service, Inc.,Defendant–CrossClaimant–Appellee , Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., Defendant , Bus Driver Joseph Risiteneau, other Joseph Risitano, Defendant–CrossClaimant ,

* Judge John G. Koeltl, of the United States Dist rict Court for the Sout hern District of New York, sitting by designation.“John Coe” Motor Vehicle Driver,Defendant–CrossDefendant .

_____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: R ALPH W HITNEY for Chan Cheeseboro, pro se , Greenville, N.C.FOR DEFENDANT–CROSSCLAIMANT–APPELLEE: N ICHOLAS H URZELER (Kimberly Edmonds, on the brief ), Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, N.Y.

_____________________________________ Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J .; Kuo, M.J. ).

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

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Chan Cheeseboro, proceeding pro se , appeals from a judgment in favor of Little Richie Bus Service, Inc. (“Little Richie”) in her negligence action. In 2000, Cheeseboro was a student passenger on a Little Richie school bus that was involved in an automobile accident. After the accident, Little Richie transported the involve d students to the hospital on a second bus. Years later, Cheeseboro, through counsel, sued Little Rich ie, claiming negligence because Little Richie’s bus had not been equipped with seatbelts, which she claimed worsened her injuries. On summary judgment, conceding that the bus did in fact have seatbelts, she instead pressed a theory that a bus matron had breached her duty of care to ensure th at Cheeseboro was wearing her seat belt at the time of the accident. The district court granted summary judgment in fa vor of Little Richie, concluding that there was no breach, and in any even t, Little Richie was entitled to immunity under state law. This appeal followed. We assume th e parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.3 We review a district court’ s grant of summary judgment de novo , “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all inferences against the moving party.” Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t , 706 F.3d 120, 126–27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in th e light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘t here is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Doninger v. Niehoff , 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) ( quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). On appeal, Cheeseboro primarily argues that she received ineffective as sistance of counsel. But however deficient her attorney’s performance wa s, there is no constitutional right to effective

assistance of counsel in a civil case. See, e.g. , United States v. Coven , 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981).

Cheeseboro also raises various new and undeveloped challenges to the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Little Richie. The dist rict court concluded that summary judgment was proper because Cheesboro failed to dispute any mate rial fact with respect to either (1) whether Little Richie breached a duty of care owed to he r, or (2) whether Little Richie is entitled to immunity under New York Education Law § 3813(4) . She fails meaningfully to challenge the second ruling, which alone is a su fficient ground on which to affirm. Section 3813(4) provides as follows: In any action for personal injuries by a passenger on a school bus against a . . . school bus operator under contract with a school district, . . . no such person shall be held liable solely because the injured party was not wearing a seat safety belt; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant immunity from liability for failure to . . . comply with applicable statutes, rules or regulations.4 N.Y. Educ. Law § 3813(4). Cheeseboro asserts th at Little Richie should not be entitled to immunity because it chose to send a second school bus rather than ambulances to transport the students to the hospital after the accident. This argument is raised for the first time on appeal, however, and only in unusual cases do we address ar guments raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g. , Greene v. United States , 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 1994) . Moreover, Cheeseboro identifies no statute, rule, or regulation that Little Richie’s deci sion violated, nor does she provide any other basis on which to disturb the distri ct court’s immunity ruling. Little Richie was therefore entitled to summary judgment. We have considered Cheeseboro’s remaining argu ments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court