Jiggetts v. Local 32BJ SEIU, Allied International Union , 488 F. App'x 508 ( 2012 )

11-4151
Jiggetts v. Local 32BJ SEIU
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 9th day of November, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 Circuit Judges,
10 DAVID G. LARIMER,*
11 District Judge.
12
13 _____________________________________
14
15 Kyle Jiggetts,
16
17 Plaintiff-Appellant,
18
19 v. 11-4151
20
21 Local 32BJ SEIU, Allied
22 International Union,
23
24 Defendants-Appellees.
25 ____________________________________
*
Judge David G. Larimer, of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by
designation.
1 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Kyle Jiggetts, pro se, Bronx,
2 New York.
3
4 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Andrew L. Strom, Office of the
5 General Counsel, SEIU Local
6 32BJ, New York, NY; Sumanth
7 Bollepalli, Weissman & Mintz
8 LLC, New York, NY.
9 Appeal from a judgment and an order of the United
10 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
11 (Stein, J.; Ellis, M.J.).
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
13 AND DECREED that the judgment and the order of the district
14 court are AFFIRMED.
15 Appellant Kyle Jiggetts, proceeding pro se, appeals the
16 district court’s judgment dismissing his claims under Title
17 I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29
18 U.S.C. §§ 411-15, and § 301 of the Labor Management
19 Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. The panel has
20 reviewed the briefs and the record in this appeal and agrees
21 unanimously that oral argument is unnecessary because “the
22 facts and legal arguments [have been] adequately presented
23 in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would
24 not be significantly aided by oral argument.” Fed. R. App.
25 P. 34(a)(2)(C). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
2
1 underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and
2 the issues on appeal.
3 This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal
4 of a complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),
5 “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual
6 allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all
7 reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers
8 v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002); see
9 also TradeComet.com LLC v. Google, Inc., 647 F.3d 472, 475
10 (2d Cir. 2011). The denial of a motion for leave to amend
11 the complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion; however,
12 where the denial is based on rulings of law, it is reviewed
13 de novo. See Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union
14 Univ., 633 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2011).
15 Here, an independent review of the record and relevant
16 case law reveals that the district court properly adopted
17 the magistrate judge’s recommendations to grant the motions
18 to dismiss and deny the motion to amend the complaint. We
19 affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
20 magistrate judge in his thorough February 24, 2010 and May
21 14, 2010 reports and recommendations.
22
3
1 We have considered Jiggetts’s remaining arguments and
2 find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
3 judgment and the order of the district court.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
4