Opinion
13-2599-cv
03-31-2014
CAROLE KITTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Carole Kittrell, pro se, Brooklyn, New York. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Kristin M. Helmers, Michael J. Pastor, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, New York, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 31st day of March, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,
DENNY CHIN,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:
Carole Kittrell, pro se, Brooklyn,
New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:
Kristin M. Helmers, Michael J.
Pastor, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo,
Corporation Counsel for the City of
New York, New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Carole Kittrell, pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, dismissing her age and race discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; and New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. In a May 31, 2013 order, the district court adopted Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann's report and recommendation of March 14, 2013, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Judgment dismissing the complaint was entered on May 31, 2013. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir. 2011). Reliance upon conclusory statements or mere allegations, however, is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532-33 (2d Cir. 1993); Fed R. Civ. P. 56(e). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her thorough March 14, 2013 report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Kittrell's timely objection, in its May 31, 2013 order.
We have considered Kittrell's arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk