15‐1630 Servin v. New World Network International

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 26th day of April, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

JEFFREY D. SERVIN, LEONARD J. BERWICK, OSAGE CORP., DBA FIRST CITY COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

v. 15‐1630

NEW WORLD NETWORK INTERNATIONAL, LTD., NEW WORLD NETWORK USA, INC., COLUMBUS COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC,

Defendants‐Appellees,

MORGAN STANLEY,

Defendant. _____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: JEFFREY D. SERVIN, pro se, Philadelphia, PA.

FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS H. FLAUM (Joshua M. Bennett, Jenna E. Browning, on the brief), Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY.

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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Jeffrey D. Servin (“Servin”), proceeding pro se, appeals

the District Court’s judgment dismissing his state law tort claims against

Defendants. Plaintiffs‐Appellants Leonard J. Berwick and First City

Communications Inc.’s appeal was previously dismissed by this Court for failure

to file an appellate brief and appendix. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We have considered all of Servin’s arguments and find them to be without

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated in the

District Court’s thorough and comprehensive opinion below.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3