Opinion
10-5024-cv
11-03-2011
Louise Marie Doverspike, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. International Ordinance Technologies, Defendant-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: Louise Marie Doverspike, pro se, Jamestown, N.Y. FOR APPELLEE: Edward J. Wagner, Wagner & Hart LLP, Olean, N.Y.
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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of November, two thousand eleven. PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
FOR APPELLANT: Louise Marie Doverspike, pro se, Jamestown, N.Y. FOR APPELLEE: Edward J. Wagner, Wagner & Hart LLP, Olean, N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Foschio, M.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Appellee's request for costs is DENIED.
Appellant Louise Marie Doverspike, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her employment discrimination complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denial of her motion to amend. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
"We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). The denial of a motion for leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir. 2006).
Upon review, we conclude that, for the same reasons articulated by the magistrate judge in his well-reasoned decisions, Doverspike's arguments on appeal are without merit. See Doverspike v. Int'l Ordinance Techs., No. 09-cv-473, 2010 WL 986513 (W.D.N.Y. March 17, 2010); Doverspike v. Int'l Ordinance Techs., No. 09-cv-473 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010).
However, Appellee's request for costs based on Doverspike's initial incorrect filing of her notice of appeal and appellate brief is denied. Appellee has not set forth any authority for its requested relief, nor has it established that Doverspike acted with some improper purpose in failing to follow proper filing procedures. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED and Appellee's request for costs is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk