12

- 3826

- cv

Gomes v. ANGOP



### 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 APPELLAT E 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 TH E NOTATION "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 C ourthouse, 40 Foley Square , in the City of New York, on the 19 th day of November , two thousand t hirteen

.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI ,

DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JOAO CARLOS SALVADOR GOMES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

- v - 12

- 3826

- cv ANGOP, ANGOLA PRESS AGENCY , et al
. , Defendant s - Appell ee s .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT : Joao Carlos Salvador Gomes , pro se , Jackson Heights , New York

FOR DEFENDANT S

- APPELLEE S : Marjorie E. Berman, Krantz & Berman, LLP , New York, New York ,- 2

- and Andrew Z. Schwartz, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, Massachusetts. Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York ( Irizarry , J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
.

Plaintiff

- appellant Joao Carlos Salvador Gomes, proceeding pro se , appeals from the district court's judgment
entered August 24 , 2012, dismissing his complaint with prejudice

. By opinion and order entered August 22, 2012, the district court granted defendants ' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and denied Gomes's motions, inter alia , to remand the case to state court. On appeal, Gomes raises a host of arguments. He
also moves for leave to supplement the record on appeal and to file a supplemental appendix. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the fact s, procedural history, and issues for
review. As an initial matter, we deny Gomes' s motions to supplement the record. The record on appeal is typically
limited to " the original papers and exhibits filed in the
district court ." Fed. R. App. P. 10 (a)(1)
. Similarly, the appendix consists of " the relevant docket entries in the- 3

-

proceeding below " and " the relevant portions of the pleadings, charge, findings, or opinion." Fed. R. App. P. 30 (a)(1)(A)

- (B). Here, Gomes had ample opportunity below to submit evide nce and did, in fact, submit hundreds of pages of exhibits in support of his argument s . "Ordinarily, material not included in the record on appeal will not be considered." Loria v. Gorman , 306 F.3d 1271, 1280 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002 ) (internal citation omitted )
. No

" extraordinary circumstances " are apparen t here that would cause us to consider anything outside the record

. See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. , 596 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir.
2010) ( quoting Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Edelstein , 526 F.2d 37,
45 (2d Cir. 1975) ).

We review de novo a district court's decision to deny
a motion to remand. Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp. , 686 F.3d 62, 64
(2d Cir. 2012)

. In reviewing a district court's decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de

novo . Maloney v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 517 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir.
2008) (per curiam). Likewise , when a district court dismisses a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo
. Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby , 726 F.3d 119, 128 (2d Cir. 2013)

.- 4

- We have conducted an independent review of the record,

and we affirm the district court 's denial of Gomes's motion to

remand and its dismissal of his complaint for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction , substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion and order

.

We have considered all of Gomes' s remaining arg uments
and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing

reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court . It is

further ordered that Gomes' s motion s are DENIED
.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O' Hagan Wolfe, Clerk