Sellers v. Royal Bank of Canada

Full title: David Sellers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 6, 2015

592 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2015)

Opinion

14-302

02-06-2015

David Sellers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: DAVID SELLERS, pro se, Hopewell, NJ. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: James P. Walsh, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Princeton, NJ.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6^th day of February, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: Dennis Jacobs, Richard C. Wesley, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges .

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:

DAVID SELLERS, pro se, Hopewell, NJ.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:

James P. Walsh, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Princeton, NJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant David Sellers, pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of The Royal Bank of Canada, et al. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

"We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards that govern the district court's consideration of the motion." Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine disputes concerning any material facts, and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. "We resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id.

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted summary judgment. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough Decision and Order, dated January 8, 2014.

We have considered all of Sellers's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk