Case Name: Curtis L. FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1199 SEIU HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-19
Citations: 559 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 12-1515
Parties: Curtis L. FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1199 SEIU HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Curtis L. FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1199 SEIU HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-1515.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 19, 2014.
Curtis L. Freeman, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Suzanne A. Metzger, Assistant General Counsel, 1199 SEIU Benefit & Pension funds, New York, NY, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge.
Judge Nelson S. Román, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Curtis L. Freeman, pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund ("Fund") in Freeman's suit alleging that the Fund failed to properly compute his entitlements under a defined benefit pension plan. We assume the parties' familiarity -with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; "[t]he inferences to be drawn from the underlying affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir.1995)).
Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Fund. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its decision filed March 30, 2012.
We have considered all of Freeman's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.