10-2238-cv Toran v. City of Binghamton **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**  **SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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 23 rdday of January, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 PETER W. HALL, 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 Circuit Judges

. 9 10 11 12 Verties D. Toran, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant , 15 16 -v.- 10-2238-cv 17 18 City of Binghamton, Mayor Matthew Ryan, in official 19 capacity, Joseph Yanuzzi, Water Superintendant, in official 20 capacity, 21 22 Defendants-Appellees
. 23 24 25 FOR APPELLANT: Verties D. Toran, pro se , 26 Binghamton, NY. 27 28 FOR APPELLEES: Brian Matthew Seachrist, Office of 29 the Corporation Counsel, Binghamton, 30 NY. 31 32 332 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 1 Northern District of New York ( McAvoy , J .). 2 3 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 4 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 5 **AFFIRMED** . 6 Appellant Verties D. Toran, proceeding pro se , appeals 7 from the district court’s dismissal of his employment 8 discrimination complaint. We assume the parties’ 9 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 10 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 11 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant 12 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), 13 accepting all factual allegations therein as true and 14 drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See 15 Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd. , 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d 16 Cir. 2008) (Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)); Chambers v. Time 17 Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (Fed R. Civ. 18 P. 12(b)(6)). In addition, a pro se litigant’s complaint 19 should be read liberally, and the pro se litigant should be 20 granted leave to amend a complaint at least once “when a 21 liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a 22 valid claim might be stated.” Shomo v. City of N.Y. , 579 23 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 243 citation omitted). However, a district court need not grant 1 leave to amend a complaint when amendment would be futile. 2 Ellis v. Chao , 336 F.3d 114, 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 3 Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 4 Here, we find no error in the district court’s 5 dismissal of Toran’s claims pursuant to Title VII of the 6 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 7 (“Title VII”), and New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. 8 Exec. Law § 290, et seq . (“NYSHRL”), and we affirm the 9 judgment with respect to those issues for substantially the 10 same reasons as those articulated by the district court in 11 its decision. See Toran v. City of Binghamton , No. 09-cv12 1381, 2010 WL 2026064 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 2010). 13 We decline to address Toran’s First Amendment 14 retaliation claimunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on appeal. 15 Although Toran asserted this claim below, he fails to raise 16 this issue in his brief. “Issues not sufficiently argued in 17 the briefs are considered waived . . . .” Norton v. Sam’s 18 Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998). 19 20 21 224 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 1 court is hereby **AFFIRMED** . 2 3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7