WEINBERGER v. TOWN OF FALLSBURG (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Weinberger, pro se, sued the Town of Fallsburg, New York, its Code Enforcement Office, and its employee, Frank Werlitz, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the Defendants violated his procedural due process rights and took his property without just compensation when they condemned his property without adequate notice. The District Court dismissed the complaint, reasoning in part that Weinberger failed to state a municipal liability claim and that Werlitz was entitled to qualified immunity. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).

The Defendants argue that Weinberger has failed to challenge the District Court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim for municipal liability and that Werlitz was entitled to qualified immunity. While we “liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam), a pro se appellant waives any issue that he fails to argue in his appellate brief, see LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995). Weinberger did not make any arguments on appeal concerning municipal liability or Werlitz’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Therefore, he has waived these issues, which are dispositive of his complaint.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Weinberger on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the February 7, 2019 judgment of the District Court.