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 (wit h 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 Cou rthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York , on the 1 4 th day of April , two thousand twenty

.

PRESENT: A MALYA L. K EAR SE
, J OSÉ A. C ABRANES
, R OBERT D

. S ACK
, Circuit Judges

.

E DWARD W EINBERGER
,
Plaintiff

- Appell ant , 19

- 627

- cv

v.

T OWN OF F ALLSBURG
, T OWN OF F ALLSBURG C ODE E NFORCEMENT O FFICE
, F RANK W ERLITZ
, IN HIS

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFIC IAL CAPACITY AS C ODE E NFORCEMENT O FFICER FOR THE T OWN OF F ALLSBURG C ODE E NFORCEMENT O FFICE
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT: Ed ward Weinberger, pro se, Fallsburg,
NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- APPELLEE S : Iryna S. Kraucha nka , 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. Romá n , J udge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of t he 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 D efendants violated his procedural due process rights and took his property without just compensation when they condemned his property without adequate notice. The D istrict C ourt dismissed the complaint, reasoning in part that Weinberger failed to state a m unicipal 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 D efendants argue that Weinberger has failed to challenge the D istrict C ourt’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 i n his appellate brief

, s ee 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, w hich 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