Burns v. Bank of America

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellants Kevin Burns and Barbara Burns (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the December 4, 2008, 655 F.Supp.2d 240, order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees, as well as the court’s “prior orders,” which we take to mean the June 28, 2006 order granting in part and denying in part Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss. In their briefs to this Court the Plaintiffs also lodge a variety of allegations of misconduct against Judge Berman of the district court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the *256 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. In their appeal of the district court’s rulings, Plaintiffs principally rely on the papers they submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment below. We have reviewed the Plaintiffs’ claims and we affirm the district court’s orders of June 28, 2006 and December 4, 2008 substantially for the reasons stated in those opinions. As to Plaintiffs’ contention that they have “presented a Record to this court that is persuasive, if not unequivocal, that Judge Berman was and is pre-disposed to rule against the Plaintiff[s],” we disagree. The majority of the Plaintiffs’ “Statement of Facts and Order Challenged” in its primary brief is devoted to recounting Judge Berman’s alleged misconduct in the proceedings below, but most of these accusations are accompanied by vague citations to the record that provide us with little guidance as to where to find evidence of such improprieties. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“The appellant’s brief must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”); Fed. R.App. P. 30(a)(1)(D) (stating that appellants “must prepare and file an appendix to the briefs containing ... parts of the record to which the parties wish to direct the court’s attention”). The allegations that are accompanied by specific (if imprecise) citations to the record are wholly without merit and often predicated on blatant misrepresentations of the facts. For example, Plaintiffs misleadingly assert that the Chief Judge of the Southern District “commissioned an investigation” into Judge Berman’s conduct; the letter they cite from then-Chief Judge Wood, informing Barbara Burns that her letter (presumably regarding Judge Berman’s alleged misconduct) had been referred to the Pro Se and Clerk’s Office Committees of the District Court, indicates no such “investigation.” Because Plaintiffs have failed entirely to support their allegations, we decline to consider them. See Amnesty Am. v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 133 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that failure to comply with Rule 28 is grounds for this Court to dismiss an appeal); 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.”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.