Case ID: f-appx_522/html/0066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frankie CORTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Corrections, Diane Carn, Deputy Warden, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Warden of Administration, Neil Schulman, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden for Administration, Vernon C. Bain Center, Vernon C. Bain Center, Richard Palmer, Jr., individually and in his official capacity as Warden, Vernon C. Bain, Defendants-Appellees, Sadie Smith, individually and in her official capacity as Correction Officer, shield number 1893, Defendant.
    
    No. 12-1812-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 13, 2013.
    
      Frankie Cortes, Yonkers, NY, pro se.
    Marta Soja Ross (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, Edward F.X. Hart, of Counsel, on the brief), New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for ap-pellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON Circuit Judges and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the caption as set out above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Judge Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Frankie Cortes, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing his employment discrimination action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988, and 1985; the First and Fourteenth Amendments; New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; and New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and specification of issues for review.

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, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon review, we conclude that Cortes’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned memorandum opinion. Cortes v. City of New York, No. 08-cv-4805(LTS)(RLE), 2012 WL 1026136 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012). We have considered all of Cortes’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.