Case Name: Bernard W. GOONEWARDENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-10
Citations: 120 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 02-9501
Parties: Bernard W. GOONEWARDENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 410–410

Head Matter:
Bernard W. GOONEWARDENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-9501.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 10, 2005.
Bernard W. Goonewardena, New York, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
Ellen M. Fitzgerald, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, New York, N.Y. (on submission), for Appellee.
PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court's June 4, 2003 order be AFFIRMED.
Bernard W. Goonewardena, pro se, appeals from a June 4, 2003 order of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, /.), denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) and 59, and motion for relief from the court's final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
We decline to address claims that Goonewardena failed to present to the district court. See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1990) ("We generally will not consider claims that were not presented in the lower court."). With respect to the remaining claims, we find them to be without merit, substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
For the reasons set forth above, the June 4, 2003 order of the district court is AFFIRMED.