Case Name: In the Matter of MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, Debtor, Atul C. Shah, Appellant, v. Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 566 F. App'x 87
Docket Number: No. 13-2647-bk
Parties: In the Matter of MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, Debtor, Atul C. Shah, Appellant, v. Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Appellee.
Judges: Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 566
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
In the Matter of MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, Debtor, Atul C. Shah, Appellant, v. Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Appellee.
No. 13-2647-bk.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 19, 2014.
Atul C. Shah, Troy, MI, for Appellant.
Jeffrey Rhodes, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment and order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Atul Shah, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, J.) affirming the judgment of a bankruptcy court disallowing his proof of claim. Shah had asserted claims for violations of his First Amendment rights; discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Michigan Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; as well as unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VIL We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We conduct a plenary review of a decision of a district court functioning as an intermediate appellate court in a bankruptcy case, review de novo the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions, and accept the bankruptcy court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. See In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2013).
Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the bankruptcy court properly disallowed Shah's proof of claim. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the bankruptcy court in its thorough and well-reasoned order. As Shah did not raise any substantive arguments with respect to his First Amendment claim, he has therefore abandoned this claim on appeal. See Lo-Sacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).
We have considered all of Shah's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.