
    John Ojwang OMOLLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Charles Prince, CEO of Citigroup, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-3022-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 22, 2010.
    John Ojwang Omollo, pro se, Johannesburg, South Africa, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kevin B. Leblang (Allisa R. Goodman, on the brief), Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant John Ojwang Omollo, pro se, (“plaintiff’) appeals from an order of the District Court entered May 6, 2008, dismissing his claims against the defendants on the basis of the doctrine oifomm non conveniens. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in concluding that South Africa is an adequate alternative forum and in dismissing his claims pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of this case.

We review a dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir.2001) (en banc)). A district court abuses its discretion in granting a forum non conveniens dismissal when its decision “(1) rests either on an error of law or on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or (2) cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions, or (3) fails to consider all the relevant factors or unreasonably balances those factors.” Pollux Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 70 (2d Cir.2003) (citation omitted).

Here, we find no error in the District Court’s forum non conveniens analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its May 6, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order. See Omollo v. Citibank, N.A., No. 07 Civ. 9259, 2008 WL 1966721 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  