* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the Un ited States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption of this case to conform to the listi ng of the parties shown above. 1 11-3273-cv Horrigan v. Wald UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summa ry 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 or der in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electr onic 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 A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 6 th day of December, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , R EENA R AGGI , Circuit Judges, J ED S. R AKOFF , District Judge.*

__________________________________________ Holly Horrigan, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, No. 11-3273-cv
v. John Wald, individually, and as President of Pendelton Trading Systems, Inc., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant , Pendelton Trading Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant. **

__________________________________________2FOR PLAINTIFF-COUNTERDEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Kevin E. Bowens, Barron & Newburger, P.C., Scarsdale, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT-APPELLANT: John Wald, pro se , Shavano Park, TX. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Holwell, Judge ). UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s June 28, 2011 Order granting partial final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b) is AFFIRMED

. Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant John Wald appeals from the District Court’s June 28, 2011 Order (1) granting partial final judgment in favor of plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee Holly Horrigan in the amount of $125,000 plus in terest on her breach of contract claim, and (2) denying as untimely Wald’s motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s December 7, 2009 Order, which had granted summary judgment in favor of Horrigan on her breach of contract claim. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “resolv[e] all ambiguities and draw[ ] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Burg v. Gosselin , 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord , 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009)). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. On appeal, Wald does not raise any arguments with regard to the District Court’s denial of his motion to reconsider or its Order making final its grant of partial summary judgment, and he has therefore abandoned any such arguments. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995). With regard to Wald’s arguments about the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Horrigan on her breach of contract claim, we find them to be without merit,3 substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s careful and comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 7, 2009. Accordingly, the June 28, 2011 Order of the District Court is AFFIRMED

.

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