12-3661-cv

Rosario v. New York City Dep’t of Educ.

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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 5

th day of December, two thousand thirteen.

PRESENT:

JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

LUCIANO ROSARIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No. 12-3661

 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Defendant-Appellee, 

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Luciano Rosario, pro se, Bronx, NY. 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Francis F. Caputo, Karen M. Griffin, for

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of 

the City of New York, New York, NY.
2

Appeal from an August 7, 2012 judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York (Paul A. Engelmayer, Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Luciano Rosario, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s judgment 

dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), his claim for employment 

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We 

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the 

issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “‘resolv[e] all ambiguities and 

draw[ ] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is 

sought.’” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 

(2d Cir. 2009)). Summary judgment is appropriate “only if the moving party shows that there are no 

genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). 

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we conclude that the 

District Court properly dismissed Rosario’s claims. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by 

Judge Engelmayer in his comprehensive opinion of August 3, 2012. See Rosario v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of 

Educ., No. 10 Civ. 6160(PAE), 2012 WL 3155029 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2012). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Rosario’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court