Case ID: f-appx_641/html/0095-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher B. SHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John McHUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
    
    No. 15-1349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 11, 2016.
    Michael H. Sussman, Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Li Yu, Assistant United States Attorney (Tomoko Onozawa, Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption to conform to the above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Christopher B. Shaw, an employee of the United States Army, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for John McHugh, in his capacity as the Secretary, Department of the Army, on his claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Irby v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 262 F.3d 412, 413 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam). However, even if we must draw inferences in her favor, the party opposing summary judgment may not rely on “speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1986).

Here, our review of the record and relevant case law shows that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Shaw’s claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its opinion and order.

We have considered all of Shaw’s arguments on this appeal and find that they lack merit. For the reasons given, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.