AGOSTO 95A3133 v. LIRA (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Rafael Agosto (“Agosto”), proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s judgment dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rules 37(b) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We deem Agosto to have abandoned any objection he could have made to the merits of the District Court’s judgment because his briefs address neither of the grounds for dismissal of his complaint. See, e.g., Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142 n.4 (2d Cir. 2013).¹

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Agosto on appeal and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the March 13, 2017 judgment of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Agosto argues in his appellate briefs that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matters raised in his complaint. The District Court did have subject-matter jurisdiction, however, because this action arose under one of the laws of the United States, namely, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Hughes v. Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n of the City of N.Y., 850 F.2d 876, 881 (2d Cir. 1988). We have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide this appeal because the District Court has issued a final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 802 F.3d 242, 246 (2d Cir. 2015).