SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Diane Harris, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.) dismissing her complaint. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Harris fails to sufficiently press any substantive arguments, and has thus forfeited any claim of error on appeal. LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142 n.4 (2d Cir. 2013) (pro se litigant forfeited all claims against one appellee by mentioning the adverse ruling only "obliquely and in passing"); 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.").

In any event, the district court decision was sound. Many of Harris's claims were time-barred, unexhausted, or inadequately pleaded for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's thorough report and recommendation (adopted in relevant part by the district court). In addition, despite multiple invitations from the district court (and sua sponte extensions of time), Harris failed to amend her complaint in order to address the concerns raised by the magistrate judge and the district court. Accordingly, the district court appropriately dismissed Harris's complaint and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Harris's remaining arguments are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Harris's motion to enlarge the record on appeal is DENIED. Harris's motion to add Reynaldo Calderin, Jr. as a plaintiff is DENIED.