15-973 Donchatz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.


## 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 JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D 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 13 th day of May, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________ Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v. 15-973

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Intervale Mortgage Corporation,
Defendants .*

_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Kenneth R. Donchatz, pro se, Westerville, OH

* The Clerk of Court is respectfull y directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES HSBC Ba nk USA, N.A., HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Merscorp Holdings, Inc., and Ribbeck: Preston Lee Zarlock, Anna Mercado Clark, John Ayres Mosychuk, Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo, NY

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES Miles and Lewis: Stephen D. Miles and Vincent A. Lewis, Esq., pro se, Dayton, OH
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES Gormley and Wiery: Christopher J. Belter and Daniel B. Moar, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Buffalo, NY

Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the We stern District of New

York (Curtin, J .).

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

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Kenneth R. Donchatz, an attorney pr oceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint, which alleged violations of the Fair De bt Collection Practices Act, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and New York law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedur al history of the case, a nd the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, including its application
of the relevant statute of limitations, construing the complaint liberally, accepting its factual
allegations as true, and drawing all reasona ble inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Deutsche

Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Quicken Loans Inc ., 810 F.3d 861, 865 (2d Cir. 2015); Chambers v. Time

Warner, Inc ., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).
After an independent review of the reco rd and relevant case law, we affirm for
substantially the same reasons articulated by the dist rict court in its well-reasoned order. We have3 considered all of Donchatz’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk