From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poindexter v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 23, 2010
372 F. App'x 103 (2d Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-1192-cv.

March 23, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, j.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Robert Poindexter, pro se, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert A. Jacobs, (Benjamin G. Shatz, on the brief), Manatt, Phelps Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT D. SACK, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.


SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Robert Poindexter appeals from the district court's judgment granting summary judgment for Warner/Chappell Music and dismissing his copyright owner-ship and infringement complaint. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and asks whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, this Court is "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, "conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. We have considered Poindexter's arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly; the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Poindexter v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mar 23, 2010
372 F. App'x 103 (2d Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Poindexter v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Robert POINDEXTER, Plaintiff-Appellantw, v. WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 2010

Citations

372 F. App'x 103 (2d Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Pickett v. Migos Touring, Inc.

The Court takes judicial notice of these 32 instances as they can be obtained from widely available and…

Blue Angel Realty, Inc. v. United States

"Settlement discussions are not the sort of extraordinary circumstances that would trigger the application of…