14‐1714 Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y.

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 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 23rd day of September, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________

CARMEN M. SEGARRA,

Plaintiff ‐ Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 14‐1714

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL SILVA, MICHAEL KOH, JOHNATHON KIM,

Defendants ‐ Appellees.

____________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: Linda J. Stengle, Stengle Law, Boyertown, PA.

FOR APPELLEES: Thomas C. Baxter, Jr., David Gross, Thomas M. Noone, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, New York, NY; Richard F. Hans, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY. ____________________________________________

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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and

hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Carmen Segarra filed a whistleblower claim against her

former employer, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and three of its

employees. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit by memorandum‐opinion

dated April 23, 2014, and order dated April 24, 2014. Plaintiff now appeals.

Segarra argues principally on appeal that the First Amended Complaint

should not have been dismissed because it sufficiently pleaded that Segarra was

fired for reporting various unlawful acts.1 We agree with the district court that

Segarra failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, her

proposed Second Amended Complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the First

1 We find that the arguments Segarra raises for the first time in her reply brief are inadequately presented on appeal. Norton v. Sam’s Club,

(2d Cir. 1998).

2 Amended Complaint. We have considered Segarra’s remaining arguments and

conclude that they are without merit.

For the reasons stated above and in the accompanying per curiam

opinion,2 the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2 As to the accompanying per curiam, Judge Kearse concurs in result only.

3