No. 07-5308-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 6, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.).
Page 618
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ANDDECREED that the appeal be DISMISSED.
Emil D. Anghel, Hartford, CT, pro se.
Louis B. Blumenfeld, Cooney, Scully and Dowling, Hartford, CT, for Appellee.
PRESENT: CHESTER J. STRAUB, B.D. PARKER and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Emil D. Anghel, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), and moves to reject the Defendant-Appellee’s brief as improperly filed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003). However, because Anghel does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction, he has abandoned the only justiciable issue now before us, warranting the dismissal of his appeal. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, it is abandoned).[1]
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is herebyDISMISSED, and Anghel’s motion to reject the Defendant-Appellee’s brief is DENIED as moot.