23-7520-cv Maitland v. Target Corp.

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 20th day of December, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERICA MAITLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 23-7520-cv

TARGET CORPORATION, D/B/A TARGET,

Defendant-Appellee.

------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR APPELLANT: Erica Maitland, pro se, Brooklyn, NY

FOR APPELLEE: Mitchell B. Levine, Fishman McIntyre, P.C., New York, NY

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

District of New York (Margo K. Brodie, Chief Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Erica Maitland, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, C.J.) granting

summary judgment in favor of Target Corporation in Maitland’s negligence

action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the

record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our

decision to affirm.

We review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,

construing the evidence in Maitland’s favor. See Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2010). Maitland’s one-page appellate brief does not

address the reasoning of the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint.

Instead, Maitland raises new jurisdictional and constitutional arguments that she

2 did not previously raise before the District Court and that she raises for the first

time on appeal. She has thus forfeited those arguments, and we will not

consider them on appeal. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig.,

(2d Cir. 2008).

Likewise, although Maitland’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed in

this Court challenged the District Court’s summary judgment order, her

appellate brief does not refer to the District Court’s order. Accordingly, we

conclude that Maitland has abandoned her challenge to the District Court’s

summary judgment ruling. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown,

, 92–93

(2d Cir. 1995).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

3