
    Holly HORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. John WALD, individually, and as President of Pendelton Trading Systems, Inc., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, Pendelton Trading Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant.
    
    No. 11-3273-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 6, 2012.
    
      Kevin E. Bowens, Barron & Newburger, P.C., Scarsdale, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
    John Wald, pro se, Shavano Park, TX, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption of this case to conform to the listing of the parties shown above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant John Wald appeals from the District Court’s June 28, 2011 Order (1) granting partial final judgment in favor of plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee Holly Horri-gan in the amount of $125,000 plus interest on her breach of contract claim, and (2) denying as untimely Wald’s motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s December 7, 2009 Order, which had granted summary judgment in favor of Horrigan on her breach of contract claim.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “resolv[e] all ambiguities and draw[] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009)). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

On appeal, Wald does not raise any arguments with regard to the District Court’s denial of his motion to reconsider or its Order making final its grant of partial summary judgment, and he has therefore abandoned any such arguments. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995). With regard to Wald’s arguments about the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Horrigan on her breach of contract claim, we find them to be without merit, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s careful and comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 7, 2009.

Accordingly, the June 28, 2011 Order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  