
    Leo TSIMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Director Andrea QUARANTILLO, New York District Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Director Ruth A. Dorochoff, Chicago District of Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Officer-in-Charge Kate Leopole, Milwaukee Sub-Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Secretary Janet Napolitano, of the Department of Homeland Security; Acting Deputy Director Michael Aytes, of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-2804-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 24, 2009.
    David Kwang Soo Kim, (Matthew L. Guadagno, Kerry W. Bretz, and Jules E. Coven, on the brief) Bretz & Coven, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    F. James Loprest, Jr., Special Assistant United States Attorney, and Ross E. Morrison, Assistant United States Attorney (for Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, B.D. PARKER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), the public officers who have ceased to hold office are removed and the public officers' successors are automatically substituted.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Leo Tsimmer (“Tsimmer”) appeals from a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) on April 25, 2008, dismissing Tsimmer’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

In our review of a dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Wake v. United States, 89 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir.1996).

We AFFIRM for the substantive reasons detailed in the District Court’s opinion.  