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 . 1 09- 1154- cv D i ve rs v. M etro. Jew i sh H ea l t h S ys. 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. Citatio n to sum mary or ders filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a docu ment file d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term

of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, on the t hirt ieth day of June, t wo thousand an d ten.

PR E SE NT: R O GE R J. M I NER , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x C AT HER I NE D I VERS ,

Plainti ff-App ellant,

-v .- No . 09 -1 154 -c v M ET R OP OL I T A N J EWI S H H EA L T H S Y STE M S and T ERES A C A MB R I NI ,

Defenda nts-App ellees

. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR P LAIN TIF F
- AP P ELLAN T: Cath er in e Di ver s , pro se , Roch es te r , N Y.Pu r s uan t t o 2 8 U. S.C. § 63 6( c) andFe d. R. Civ . P . 73 , the p ar ti es con s ent ed o n J anu ary 7, 1 2008 to have a United Sta tes magistr ate judge conduct al l of the proceedings in this case, includi ng th e tr ial , en tr y of fi nal ju dgm ent , an d co nd uct

all po s t- ju dgm ent

pr oce edi ngs . B ecau s e Di

ver s do es no t c hallenge the dis mi s s al o f h er FL M A claim , o r

th e di s mi s s al 2 witho ut pr eju di ce, o f h er

s tat e andcit

y law clai ms , any argum ent

as to th os e is s ues is aban do ned

. See, e.g., LoSacco v

. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d C ir. 1995). 2 FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Mich ael J . D iM att ia an d P hilip A. G ol ds te in , M cGu ir eWoo ds LLP, New

Yor k, N Y. Appea l from a January 14, 2009 judg ment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Eastern Di s tr ict of New Yor k ( J oanM . Azr ack, Magistrate Judge ). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED th at the j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D
. Pro se pl ain ti ff C a the rin e D iv er s, a bl a ck , h et er ose xu a l fe ma le , b rou gh t th is a ctio n a ga in st defendants, Metropolitan Jewish Health Systems (“MJ HS”) and Teresa Ca mbrini, alleg ing employ ment di s cr im in ati onbas ed o n h er

r ace an d s exu al o r

ien tat io n i n v io lat io n o f the Ci

vil Righ ts Act

of 186 1, 4 2 U.S .C. § 198 1, d eni al o f m edi cal l eave invio lat io n o f the F amily an d M edi cal L eave Act (“ FMLA ”) , 29 U.S .C. § 260 1 et

seq., ands ever al o th er

vio lat io ns of s tat e andcit

y law . T he D is tr

ict Cou r t gr ant ed def end ant s ’ m ot

io n f or s um mar y ju dgm ent

with r es pec t t o D ive r s ’ f

ede r al cl aim s onJ anu ary 14 , 20 08. Di ver s fileda ti mel

y app eal o f that

or der

. Onapp eal, Di

ver s als o alleg es th at s he w as in com pet ent ly 2 re pre sen te d b y h era tto rne y i n th e p roc ee di ng s be lo w. W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa mi li a rity wit h th e f a ct s, pr oce du r al his to ry andis s ues r ais ed o n ap peal

. We revi ew orders granting summary judgment de novo , and we will a ffirm only if the record, viewedinth e light

mo s t f avo r abl e t o the n on mo ving pa r ty , r eveals no gen ui ne i s s ue o f m ate r ial fa ct . See Fe d. R. Civ . P . 56 (c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U. S. 2 42, 247 -4 8 ( 198 6) ; Redd v. Wr ig ht , 59 7 F .3d 532, 535-36 (2d C ir. 2010). We anal yze discrimination claims using the burden-shif ting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 41 1 U. S. 7 92, 802 -0 4 ( 197 3) . H avi ng c on du ct ed an independe nt and de novo review, w e hold, for subs tantially the reasons s tated by the District Court in its well -r eas on ed o pi ni on , se e D iver s v . M et ro . J ew is h Healt h Sy s. , No . 06 -CV -6 704(RRM ) ( J M A) , 20 09 WL 103 703 (E. D. N. Y. J an. 14, 200 9) , that Di ver s faile d t o es tab lis h a prima facie case of discrimination with r es pec t t o h er

emp lo yme nt

di s cr im in ati onclai m. Fi nally, Di

ver s ’ co nce r ns with r es pec t t o the c om pet enc y of her cou ns el i n the p r oce edi ngs bel ow ar e mi s pl aced . I t i s well s et tl ed that

th e Si xth Am end men t r

igh t t o co un s el d oes no t ap ply inciv il cas es . United Sta tes v. Coven , 66 2 F .2d162 , 17 6 ( 2dCir . 19 81) . Any co nce r ns Di ver s has r egar di ng h er att orney ’s per fo r man ce m us t b e r ais ed i n a s epar ate malpr act ice p r oce edi ng. Cf. Pioneer Inv. Serv s. Co. v. Br uns wi ckAs so cs . Lt d. P ’s hip , 507 U.S. 3 80, 396 (1993) (“[C ]lients mus t be held a ccountabl e for the acts and omissions of their attorneys.”).3 CONCLUSI ON We ha ve considered ea ch of Divers’ arguments on appeal a nd conclude that they are without me rit . A cc ord in gl y, for t he fore go in g re a son s the 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