Case Name: Diane HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-03
Citations: 615 F. App'x 49
Docket Number: No. 14-1071
Parties: Diane HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, WALKER and DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Diane HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1071.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 3, 2015.
Diane Harris, pro se, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas A. Catalano, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, NY, for Psychopharmacology Consultants of New York LLC, Yosef Horowitz, McGaw, Al-ventosa & Zajac, Jericho, NY, for Jan Roda, M.D., Barbara E. Hoey, Alison L. MacGregor, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY, for NYU Langone Medical Center, et al, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, WALKER and DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Diane Harris, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.) dismissing her complaint. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.
Harris fails to sufficiently press any substantive arguments, and has thus forfeited any claim of error on appeal. LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995); see also Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142 n. 4 (2d Cir.2013) (pro se litigant forfeited all claims against one appellee by mentioning the adverse ruling only "obliquely and in passing"); Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998) ("Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.").
In any event, the district court decision was sound. Many of Harris's claims were time-barred, unexhausted, or inadequately pleaded for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's thorough report and recommendation (adopted in relevant part by the district court). In addition, despite multiple invitations from the district court (and sua sponte extensions of time), Harris failed to' amend her complaint in order to address the concerns raised by the magistrate judge and the district court. Accordingly, the district court appropriately dismissed Harris's complaint and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Harris's remaining arguments are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Harris's motion to enlarge the record on appeal is DENIED. Harris's motion to add Reynaldo Calderin, Jr. as a plaintiff is DENIED.