Case Name: Renzer BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH BAY EUROPEAN CORP., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-24
Citations: 378 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 08-5545-cv
Parties: Renzer BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH BAY EUROPEAN CORP., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
Renzer BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH BAY EUROPEAN CORP., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-5545-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 24, 2010.
Renzer Bell, Jacksonville, FL, pro se.
Hermes Fernandez, Michael Collins, on the brief, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Albany, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Renzer Bell ("plaintiff' or "Bell") appeals from the District Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees South Bay European Corp., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders (jointly "defendants"). Plaintiff claims on appeal that the District Court erred in interpreting the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), deciphering whether the parties were "merchants" under the UCC and in determining ultimately that there was no contract between Bell and the defendants. We assume the parties' familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We review de novo the District Court's decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). We will affirm the grant of summary judgment by the District Court if the record indicates that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the course of our evaluation, we afford plaintiff the "special latitude" that we give to pro se plaintiffs, see, e.g., Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1998).
An independent review of the record, case law, and arguments on appeal in the instant case reveals that the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of September 12, 2008, Bell v. South Bay Eur. Corp., No. 06-CV-472, 2008 WL 4298542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.12, 2008), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
CONCLUSION
We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.