The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, United States District Court for the *

District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official **

caption in this action to conform to the caption in this summary order.

08-4228-cv

Howard v. The City of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 4 day of February, two thousand and ten. th

Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges,

MARK R. KRAVITZ

District Judge.

*

__________________________________________________

DONOVAN HOWARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

- v. - (08-4228-cv)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

**

__________________________________________________ 
2

For Appellant: DONOVAN HOWARD, pro se,

Reisterstown, Maryland.

For Appellees: CHERYL PAYER, Assistant

Corporation Counsel, City of New

York Law Department, New York,

New York. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.).

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

2 AND DECREED that the August 4, 2008 judgment of the United

3 States District Court for the Southern District of New York

4 is AFFIRMED.

5 Plaintiff Donovan Howard, pro se, commenced this

6 employment-discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of

7 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,

8 alleging that, because of his race and gender, he was

9 subjected to a hostile work environment and wrongfully

10 terminated. Following discovery, the district court

11 conducted a jury trial that resulted in a verdict in favor

12 of defendants. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the

13 facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on

14 appeal. 

15 Having reviewed plaintiff’s submissions and conducted

16 an independent review of the record, we find no reversible

17 error in the proceedings below. First, the magistrate judge

18 to whom the matter was referred for general pretrial
3

1 purposes did not abuse his discretion when managing the

2 discovery process and denying plaintiff’s motions for

3 appointment of counsel, recusal, and sanctions. Second, we

4 find no error in either (1) the district court’s denial of

5 plaintiff’s additional motions for appointment of counsel,

6 partial summary judgment, and recusal; or (2) its

7 evidentiary rulings and administration of the jury trial in

8 this matter. With specific reference to plaintiff’s

9 complaint that the version of Exhibit B received in evidence

10 at the trial differed from the photocopy he received during

11 discovery, the district court carefully examined the

12 disputed versions of Exhibit B and correctly found no

13 substantial difference between the two. Finally, to the

14 extent that plaintiff has challenged the merits of the

15 jury’s verdict in his briefing, we find his contentions in

16 that regard to be unsupported by the record and therefore

17 unavailing. 

18 In sum, we have considered each of plaintiff’s

19 arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly,

20 the August 4, 2008 judgment of the district court is

21 AFFIRMED.

22

23 For the Court

24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

25

26

27