The Honorable Ca rol Bagley Amon, of the Unite d States Distr ict Court for the Eastern * Distr ict of New York, sitting by designa tion. 1 08- 444 5- cv Cha rles v. A Choic e Nanny UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citation to summar y order s filed after

January 1, 20 0 7 , i s pe rmi tted and is governed by t his court ’s Loca l Rule 32.1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1. In abrie f o r ot he r paper inwh ic h ali ti ga ntci te s a su m m ar y o r de r , i n e achpa r ag r ap h i n wh ic h aci ta ti onap pe ar s, a t l eas t o ne ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Fed e ra l Appendix or be accompanied b y the not ation: “( summar y order).” A party citing a sum mary or der m ust serve a c o py o f th a t s umm ary ord er tog ether wit h the pap er in which the sum mary or der is cited on any party not represented by counsel unless the summ ary or de r is a vaila bl e in an el ect r on ic da ta ba se wh ic h is pu blic ly acc essi bl e wi th ou t p aym en t o f f ee (such as the datab ase available at http:// www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). If no copy is served by r eas onof th e av aila bili ty

of th e o r de r

onsu cha d at ab ase , t he ci ta ti onm us t i nc lu de r ef er en ce to th at database and th e docket num ber of t he case in which the or der was entered. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at r ic k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, onth e 16 da

y o f D ece m be r , t

wo th ou san d a nd

ni ne . th PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER , Circuit Jud ges , C AROL B AGL EY A MON , District Judge
. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x I NGR I D J NO C HAR L ES , Pl

aint iff -A ppella nt ,
v. No . 08 -4 445 -c v D AI S Y C H A P L IN ,The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the ** lis ti ng o f the p ar ti es abo ve. Def end ant -a pp ell ant

Dai s y Chap linwas or

igi nally i den ti fi ed b y Char

les as “D ais y P r

in ce.” 1 2

Defenda nt-App ellee , A C HOI CE N A NNY , De

fe ndant
. **

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR P LAIN TIF F - AP P ELLAN T: I NGR I D J NO C HAR L ES , pro se , N ew Yo r k, N Y. F OR DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLEE : S T EV EN A. R OS EN , N ew Yo r k, N Y. Appea l from an August 22, 2008 judgment of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for the Ea stern Di s tr ict of New Yor k ( B r ianM . Co gan , Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED that the ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D
. Pl ain ti ff -a pp ell ant I ngr idJ no Char

les , pro se , appea ls fr om a judgment of the District Court entered after the Distr

ict Court granted summary judgment to defendant-appe llee Da isy Chapl in on 1 Char les ’s Tit le VI I clai ms . We as s um e the p ar ti es ’ f amilia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s , the p r oce du r al hi s to ry of th e cas e, an d the i s s ues r ais ed o n ap peal
. We revi ew orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly conclude d that there was no genuine iss ue as to any ma terial fact a nd that the moving party was ent it ledto ju dgm ent

as a mat te r

of law. See Miller v

. Wolpoff &

Abram son, L.L .P. , 32 1 F .3d292 , 30 0 (2 d Ci r . 20 03) . We r es ol

ve all am bi gui ti es anddr aw all in fe r enc es infa

vo r of th e no nm ov ant . See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc. , 18 2 F .3d157 , 16 0 ( 2dCir . 19 99)
. Chap linclai ms th at s he e mp lo ys fe wer th an f if te en e mp lo yees and , as a r es ul t, is no t an “em pl oye r ” co ver ed b y Tit le VI I
. See 42 U.S.C . § 2000e (b) (defining “employe r” as any person “en gage d i n anin du s tr

y af fe ct in g co mm er ce wh o h as fi ft eenor mo r e em pl oye es fo r

eachwor kin g day ineachof tw ent y or mo r e cal end ar

week s inth e cu r r ent

or pr ecedin g cal end ar

year ”) . Ch arles has bee n unable to submit evidenc e in opposition to that claim. A ccordingly , the Distr ict Court correctly found th at n o ge nuin e is s ue o f f

act exi s te d as to whe th er

Chap linwas an “ emp lo yer ” f or pu r po s es of

Tit le VI I , an d the D is tr

ict Cou r t p r op erly gr ant ed s um mar y ju dgm ent

inChap lin ’s fa

vo r .3

We ha ve considered C harles’s r emaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. CONCLUSI ON For t he fore go in g re a son s, t he Au gu st 2 2, 20 08 ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D
.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court
By _______________________________