The Honor able L oretta A . Preska, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the * Southern District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 10 -14 18 -cv Drak e v . La

bo ratory Corpo ration of Am erica Hold ings 

### UNITED STATES COUR T OF APP EALS FOR TH E SE COND 

### C IRC U IT SU M M A R Y O R D ER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D O N OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT F I L E D W I T H TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A PP E ND I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 4 day

of April, two thousand e leven. th 1 PRES ENT: 2 ROBERT D. SACK, 3 GERARD E. LYNCH, 4 Circuit Judges , 5 L ORETTA A. PRESKA, * 6 Chief District Judge
. 7

__________________________________________ 8 9 RI CHARD W. DRAKE, 10 Plaintif f-Appellant , 11 12 v. No. 10-1418-c v 13 14 LAB ORATORY CORPORATI ON OF AMERI CA HOL DI NGS, e t al

. , 15 Defendants-A ppellees
. 16

__________________________________________ 17 18 FOR APPEL LANT: Richard W. Drake, pro s e , Marsha ll, VA. 19 20 FOR APPEL L EES: Robert I . Steiner, Ke lley Drye & Warren L L P, New Yor k, NY, D. 21 Fa y e Caldwe ll, Caldwell & Clinton P.L .L .C., Houston, TX, for 22 L aboratory Corporation of Ame rica

Holdings a

nd Kevin Wilson;2 1 Th oma s J. Mo rt ati, B ur ke , Sc ola mie ro , M or

tati & Hurd , L L P, 2 Albany , New Y ork, for Northwe st Tox icolog y , Incorpor ated a nd 3 David J. Kuntz ; Ira G . Rosenstein, Orric k, Her ring ton & Sutcliffe 4 L L P, New Yor k, NY, for

Wil liam H. Whaley

and West Paces 5 F e rr y Me dic a l Cli nic ; D iane K. F arr e ll, De vitt Sp e llm an B arr e tt, 6 L L P, Sm ithtown, NY, for Elsohly L aboratories, Incorpor ated. 7 8 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of 9 New Y ork (B lock, J .). 10 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 11 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. 1 2 Ap p el l an tR i ch ar d W
. Dr ak e, p ro ce ed i n g pro s e , appea ls the district court’s judg ment 13 g rantingthe def endants’ motions for summar y judgme nt and dismissi nghis complaint alleg ing 14 that th e de fe nd ants pr ov ide d f a lse dr ugte st r e su lts to h is e mpl oye r. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ 15 familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts a nd the proc edura l history

of the c ase. 16 We review de novo a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of a c omp la int

un de r F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il 17 Procedur e 12(b) (2) f or lac k of per sonal jurisdiction, and the par ty asser ting jurisdiction has the 18 burden of

demonstratingthat it ex ists. See R obinson v. Ove rseas Military Sales Corp. , 21 F.3d 19 50 2, 50 7 ( 2d

Cir . 1 99 4) . We re vie w o rd e rs g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo to determine 20 whether

the district court prope rly conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l 21 fac t and the movingparty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Mi lle r v . W

olp off & 22 Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). 23 Havingconducte d an indepe ndent and de novo re vie w, we fi nd , f or su bs tanti a lly

the same 24 rea sons as the district court, that Dr ake f ailed to establish fa cts supportingthe district court’s 25 e xer c ise of

pe rs on a l juri sd ic tio n o ve r D e fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s K e vin

Wils on , E lso hly

L a bo rator ie s,3 1 Inc., Willi am H. Whaley , and West Paces F err y Medica l Cli nic. We further conclude , for 2 su

bs tanti a lly

the same re a so ns a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt , th at D ra ke ’s c la ims a g a ins t D e fe nd ants 3 Ap pe lle e s L a

bo rator y Cor po ratio n o f Ame ri c a

Ho ldi ng s, No rt

hw e st T oxic olo g y , Inc ., and Da vid 4 J. Kuntz a

re ba rr e d b y the statut e of

lim itatio ns . 5 We have c onsidered D rake ’s other a rguments on appea l and, althoug h we a re f ully awa re 6 of his sense of g rieva nce, ha ve found the m to be without lega l merit. We rejec t Drake ’s 7 inv itatio n to re c on sid e r o ur ho ldi nginDrakev. De lta Air L ines, Inc. , 147 F.3d 169 ( 2d Cir. 8 1998). We may not disreg ard the decision of a prior pane l, except in special circ umstances not 9 prese nt here
. Se e Un ion of N e e dle tra de

s, In du s. &Te

x tile Em ps . v . I NS , 336 F.3d 200, 210 ( 2d 10 Cir. 2003). A c c o r d i n g l y, th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. 11 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk