SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Marilyn Bloch, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment, dismissing her complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the casé, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court’s grant of
summary judgment, with the view that “[sjummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Upon such review, we conclude that Bloch’s appeal is without merit. To the extent that Bloch contends that the record below presents genuine issues of material fact, her argument is rejected substantially for the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge in his well-reasoned report and recommendation. See Bloch v.
Bank of Am. Corp., No. 10-cv-8424 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011). Bloch’s principal argument, however, is based not on the record below but instead on a number of facts alleged for the first time on appeal. Generally, we will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal, United States v. Lauersen, 648 F.3d 115, 115 (2d Cir.2011), and we find no reason to depart from that principle here. With respect to Bloch’s remaining arguments, we have considered them and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.