17‐268 Brady v. Assoc. Press Telecom, et al.

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 ASUMMARY 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 1st day of March, two thousand eighteen.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JAMES H. BRADY, Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v. 17‐268‐cv

ASSOCIATED PRESS TELECOM, NBC NEWS NEW YORK, WCBS‐TV NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, NEW YORK POST, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, WALL STREET JOURNAL, NEWSDAY MEDIA GROUP, Defendants‐Appellees,

JOHN DOE, 1‐50, Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: James H. Brady, pro se, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

FOR DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES: David E. McCraw, Ian MacDougall, The New York Times Company, New York, New York.

Katherine M. Bolger, Thomas B. Sullivan, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, New York.

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

Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐appellant James H. Brady, proceeding pro se, appeals from the

district courtʹs judgment entered February 3, 2017 dismissing his complaint with

prejudice for failure to state a claim and denying him leave to amend. Brady sued

defendants‐appellees Associated Press Telecom, NBC News New York, WCBS‐TV New

York, The New York Times Company, New York Post, New York Daily News, Wall

Street Journal, and Newsday Media Group, alleging fraud, conspiracy, equal protection

violations, willful misconduct, and gross negligence, based on the news organizationsʹ

2 purported failure to investigate and report on alleged judicial corruption that occurred

during Bradyʹs state court litigation about the air rights to the space above the building

in which he owned an apartment. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the

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

We review de novo the district courtʹs grant of a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, ʺaccepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.ʺ Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Engʹrs Pension Fund

v. Ivy Asset Mgmt.,

(2d Cir. 2016). The complaint must plead ʺenough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.ʺ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). We review a

decision to deny leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Pangburn v. Culbertson,

(2d Cir. 1999). We conclude that the district court properly granted

defendantsʹ motions to dismiss and did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradyʹs

motion to amend. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court

in its January 11, 2017 memorandum decision and order and by the magistrate judge in

his October 4, 2016 report and recommendation, which the district court adopted in full.

We may ʺaward just damages and single or double costs to the

appellee[s]ʺ if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 38. Given the

3 nature of this appeal, we grant the request of appellees Associated Press Telecom, NBC

News New York, WCBS‐TV New York, New York Post, New York Daily News, Wall

Street Journal, and Newsday Media Group to apply to this Court for damages and/or

double costs.

We have considered all of Bradyʹs arguments and find them to be without

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

4