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 that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Richard Mills, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court's January 9, 2014 judgment dismissing his complaint pursuant to its order granting a sanction of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court's imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion. See MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 73 F.3d 1253, 1257 (2d Cir. 1996). A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous view of the facts or "cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2010).

Here, Mills possessed ample notice to contest the charge of fraud on the court, the District Court made the necessary findings for imposing a sanction of dismissal pursuant to its inherent authority, and the findings were not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. Mill's motion to strike the brief of Appellees Genesee County, David Gann, and Lawrence Friedman and for sanctions is DENIED.