
    L. Andrew BERNHEIM, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. David ELIA, Daniel Elia, The Alfred Elia Trust, the Estate of Josephine Elia, Bernadette Elia, Tina Elia, the Estate of Alfred Elia, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, John and Jane Does 1-50, John and Jane Does 51-100, Defendants.
    No. 10-1096-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2011.
    Brian M. Melber, Personius Melber, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Philip L. Guarino, Law Office of Philip L. Guarino, Caldwell, N.J., on the brief), for Appellant.
    David Elia, Buffalo, N.Y. (David Smith, Smith, Feuerstein & Smith, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for Appellees.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, and JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

L. Andrew Bernheim appeals from the February 25, 2010 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.) dismissing his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Bernheim filed this action on February 23, 2005 against defendants David Elia, Daniel Elia, the Estate of Alfred Elia, the Alfred Elia Trust, the Estate of Josephine Elia, Bernadette Elia, Tina Elia, and John Does 1 through 100 (the “Elia defendants”). In his complaint, Bernheim alleges that he is either part or sole owner of D.A. Elia Construction Corp. (“Elia Construction”) and seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. He also alleges that the Elia defendants wrongfully deprived him of ownership profits and benefits.

After setting out the long and convoluted history of the numerous proceedings involving the parties, the district court de-dined to adopt Magistrate Kenneth Schroeder’s report and recommendation that recommended denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and granting Bernheim partial summary judgment on the issue of ownership. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s decision and opinion of February 25, 2010.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.  