Milan CAIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF EAST HADDAM, Donald Angersola, Keith Darin, Defendants-Appellees, 537 F. App'x 2

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Milan Cais, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment dismissing in its entirety Cais’s complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional right to due process. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. As an initial matter, to the extent that Cais seeks to challenge the district court’s grant of

summary judgment dismissing his claims against Defendant-Appellee Keith Darin, Cais does not argue on appeal that the district court erred with respect to the claims against Darin, and indeed the judgment in favor of Darin was granted on the ground that Cais had formally withdrawn his claims against Darin. Thus, any challenge to the dismissal of the claims against Darin has been waived. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”); LoSacco v.

City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (applying the same principle to pro se litigants). As for Cais’s other claims, “[w]e review a district court’s grant of

summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir.2005). “We will affirm the judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. “However, reliance upon conclusory statements or mere allegations is not sufficient to defeat a

summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002). An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted

summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Donald Angersola and the Town of East Haddam. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its July 14, 2011 decision. We also deny Cais’s pending motion to file a supplemental appendix and for an extension of time to file a reply brief. With respect to the proposed appendix, Cais did not present the included photographs and commentary to the district court, so we cannot consider them on appeal. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v.

Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1975) (noting that, absent extraordinary circumstances, this Court will not enlarge the record on appeal to include evidentiary material not presented to the district court). And a review of Cais’s defectively-filed reply brief reveals that it would not change the above analysis, as it largely relies on the impermissible new evidence in the proposed supplemental appendix, making a late submission unnecessary. We have considered all of Cais’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.