Case Name: Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-12
Citations: 250 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 06-4270-cv
Parties: Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-4270-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 12, 2007.
Kevin Watkins, New York, NY, pro se.
Varuni Nelson and Zachary A. Cunha, Assistant United States Attorneys, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: Hon. WILFRED FEINBERG, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR and Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Kevin Watkins, pro se, appeals from an August 15, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Trager, J.) granting summary judgment to appellee United States Postal Service, and dismissing appellant's claims. We presume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
This Court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. New York v. Nat'l Serv. Indus., 460 F.3d 201, 206 (2d Cir.2006). "[Sjummary judgment is appropriate where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir.1998); see also Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the appellee did not improperly withhold any documents responsive to the appellant's Freedom of Information Act request. For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a trial on appellant's claims, and such claims are without merit. Therefore, we hold that appellant's claims were properly dismissed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.