
    Gregory L. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, INC., Universal Pictures, Inc., Imagine Films Entertainment, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-0187-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 16, 2010.
    Gregory L. Hudson, Springfield Gardens, NY, pro se Appellant.
    
      Richard Dannay, Thomas Kjellberg, Co-wan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT D. SACK, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Gregory L. Hudson (“Appellant”), pro se, appeals from a judgment of the district court granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing his claims for breach of implied contract, copyright infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117 and 1125(a). He also moves to reverse the district court’s July 2009 order awarding the Defendants $38,904.80 in costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 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, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants because no reasonable jury could have found that the Defendants’ motion picture is substantially similar to Appellant’s play.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as those articulated by that court. We have considered all of Appellant’s remaining claims of error and find them to be without merit.

In addition, because Appellant never filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s July 2009 order awarding attorneys’ fees to the Defendants, and because any notice of appeal would now be untimely, Appellant’s motion with respect to those fees is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  