13‐3669 Prabhakar v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.

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.

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 11th day of December, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

Ratna Prabhakar,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v. No. 13‐3669

Life Insurance Company of North America, subsidiary of Cigna Corporation,

1 Defendant‐Appellee. _____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: RATNA PRABHAKAR, pro se, Bayside, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: EMILY A. HAYES, Abigail Elrod, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York (Chen, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Ratna Prabhakar, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district

court’s August 23, 2013 judgment, following a bench trial, which dismissed her

complaint as barred by the three‐year limitations period contained in her long‐

term disability policy. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Prabhakar primarily challenges the district court’s findings that the policy

contained in the claim file governed her claim and that she received a copy of

2 that policy.1 We conclude, however, that the district court’s findings were not

clearly erroneous because evidence in the record supported its decision. See

United States v. Iodice,

, 185‐86 (2d Cir. 2008). We have considered

Prabhakar’s other arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

1 We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Econ. Opportunity Comm’n of Nassau Cnty., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2013).

3