Case ID: f-appx_592/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vikas SAREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Susan M. Baer, Richard J. Louis, Adrian Johnston, James A. Steven, Rene Pearson-Smalls, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 14-34-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 5, 2015.
    Vikas Sareen, Flushing, NY, pro se.
    Megan Lee, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Vikas Sareen, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.), dismissing his complaint on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Mario v. P &C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir.2002).

Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen has offered no evidence that he was passed over for promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his position at the Port Authority still existed at the end of his voluntary leave, or that the decision-makers who denied his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent Sareen’s claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Sareen’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.