Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: May 21, 2015
Summary: 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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represent
Summary: 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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represente..
More
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 a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Rodman appeals from the District Court's October 7, 2014 judgment dismissing his amended complaint, which raised various state law claims under diversity jurisdiction for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a hip replacement surgery.1 We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC, 750 F.3d 227, 232 (2d Cir. 2014). "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the amended complaint, substantially for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned October 7, 2014 opinion. Specifically, Rodman failed adequately to allege how his hip replacement was defective and how any defect caused his injuries. Instead, Rodman alleged conclusorily that his implant was manufactured "in an improper workmanship-like manner, including but not limited to the application of the Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating." Am. Compl. ¶ 42. At best, Rodman alleged that the coating "did not meet certain specifications . . . for tensile bond strength and crystallinity," id. ¶ 100, but he never identified how this problem rendered the product defective, whether it affected his individual hip replacement, or how it caused his alleged injuries. Accordingly, Rodman failed to state a claim to relief for each of his causes of action.
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of the arguments raised by Rodman on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court's October 7, 2014 judgment.
