1

19-627-cv

Weinberger v. Town of Fallsburg et al

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 14th day of April, two thousand twenty.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

ROBERT D. SACK,

Circuit Judges.

EDWARD WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 19-627-cv

v.

TOWN OF FALLSBURG, TOWN OF FALLSBURG CODE 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, FRANK WERLITZ, IN HIS 

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CODE 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE TOWN OF 

FALLSBURG CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Edward Weinberger, pro se, Fallsburg, 

NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Iryna S. Krauchanka, Morris Duffy 

Alonso & Faley, New York, NY (for Town 

of Fallsburg and Fallsburg Code 

Enforcement Office); Michael A. 
2

Miranda, Miranda Sloane Sklarin 

Verveniotis LLP, Mineola, NY (for Frank 

Werlitz). 

Appeal from a February 7, 2019 judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York (Nelson S. Román, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is

AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Weinberger, pro se, sued the Town of Fallsburg, New York, its 

Code Enforcement Office, and its employee, Frank Werlitz, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that 

the Defendants violated his procedural due process rights and took his property without just 

compensation when they condemned his property without adequate notice. The District Court 

dismissed the complaint, reasoning in part that Weinberger failed to state a municipal liability claim 

and that Werlitz was entitled to qualified immunity. 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)(6), 

construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and 

drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 

152 (2d Cir. 2002).

The Defendants argue that Weinberger has failed to challenge the District Court’s conclusion 

that he failed to state a claim for municipal liability and that Werlitz was entitled to qualified immunity. 

While we “liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such 

submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 

154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam), a pro se appellant waives any issue that he fails to argue in his 

appellate brief, see LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995). Weinberger did not make 

any arguments on appeal concerning municipal liability or Werlitz’s entitlement to qualified immunity. 

Therefore, he has waived these issues, which are dispositive of his complaint. 
3

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Weinberger on appeal and find them to be 

without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the February 7, 2019 judgment of the 

District Court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk