
    Eugenia SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil and Criminal Divisions, Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-3065-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 5, 2011.
    Eugenia Schwarz, pro se, Jackson Heights, FL, for appellant.
    Varuni Nelson and Elliot M. Schachner, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel (Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for appellees.
    PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, WALKER and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Eugenia Schwarz, proceeding pro se, appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Homeland Security on her claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment under FOIA. See Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir.2005). “In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate.... ” Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir.1994). “Affidavits or declarations supplying facts indicating that the agency has conducted a thorough search ... are sufficient to sustain the agency’s burden,” and we accord such affidavits a “presumption of good faith.” Id. (footnote and citation omitted). This presumption “cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 489 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting SafeCard Serv., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir. 1991)).

Having conducted de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned decision. See Schwarz v. Department of Justice, No. 10 Civ. 0562(BMC)(LB), 2010 WL 2836322 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010).

CONCLUSION

We have considered Schwarz’s arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.  