The Honor able T.S. Ellis, I I I , of the United States District Court for the District of * Virg inia, sitti ng by

desig nation. 08 -54 88 -cv V oss v. United States 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS

FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MAR Y O RDE R

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 13 day of January, two thousand ten.

th
PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Circuit Judges , T.S. ELLIS, III, *

District Judge
.

__________________________________________ John J. Voss, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v. 08-5488-cv United States of America, Albany VA Medical Center, Department of Veteran Affairs,

Defendants-Appellees .

__________________________________________2

FOR APPELLANT: John J. Voss, Jr., pro se , Albany, NY. FOR APPELLEES: Andrew T. Baxter, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York; Paula Ryan Conan, Assistant United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED . Appellant John J. Voss, Jr., pro se , appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, as well as the issues on appeal. We review a district court’s rulings on subject matter jurisdiction de novo , see S.E.C. v. Berger , 322 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2003), bearing in mind that a pro se plaintiff’s complaint should be liberally construed to raise the strongest argument that it suggests, see Graham v. Henderson , 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996). Under the Federal Rules, if a court “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); accord Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free School Dist. , 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008)(“If a court perceives at any state of the proceedings that3

it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must take proper notice of the defect by dismissing the action.”). Here, the district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Voss’s complaint, and we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as articulated by that court. Moreover, we have considered Voss’s remaining claims of error and determined them to be without merit; accordingly, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED .
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
By:___________________________