10-4460-cv Batyreva v. NYC Dept. Of Education


### 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 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 9 thday of March, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge , 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges

. 11

__________________________________________ 12 13 Olga Batyreva, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant , 16 17 v. 10-4460-cv 18 19 New York City Department of Education , 20 21 Defendant-Appellee
. 22 23

__________________________________________ 24FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Olga Batyreva, pro se , Brooklyn, 1 NY. 2 3 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Norman Taub Corenthal, Assistant 4 Corporation Counsel, New York 5 City Law Department, New York, 6 NY. 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J. ). 10
11 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 12
**AND DECREED** that the judgment of the district court is 13
**AFFIRMED**
. 14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant Olga Batyreva, pro se , appeals from 16 the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in 17 favor of the defendant in her action alleging discrimination 18 and retaliation on the basis of age and national origin, and 19 raising a claim of First Amendment retaliation. We assume 20 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 21 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 22 A district court’s application of the principles of 23 claim and issue preclusion is reviewed de novo . See Bank of 24 N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc. , 607 F.3d 905, 919 (2d Cir. 25 2010). Likewise, we review de novoa district court’s grant 26 of summary judgment, construing the evidence in the light 27
2most favorable to the non-moving party. See Amador v. 1 Andrews , 655 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2011). 2 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of 3 the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for 4 substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s 5 thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation of 6 August 23, 2010, and the district court’s decision of 7 October 1, 2010. 8 We have considered all of Batyreva’s additional 9 arguments -- including her arguments that the district judge 10 was not impartial and that the defendant tried to improperly 11 influence the outcome of the case -- and find them to be 12 without merit. 13 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 14 hereby **AFFIRMED**
. 15
16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18
19

3