Opinion
No. 10-1973-cv.
May 23, 2011.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Satish Deshpande, Scarsdale, NY, pro se.
Celena R. Mayo, Esq., Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman Dicker LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: JOSÉPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Satish Deshpande, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's decision granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., ("Title VII"), New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., and New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.
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, LLP., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).
Having conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.
We have considered Appellant's other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.