14-34-cv Sareen v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.


### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 5 th** **day of February, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 8 **Circuit Judges**
**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **VIKAS SAREEN,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 14-34-cv** 15 16 **THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW** 17 **JERSEY, SUSAN M. BAER, RICHARD J.** 18 **LOUIS, ADRIAN JOHNSTON, JAMES A.** 19 **STEVEN, RENE PEARSON-SMALLS,** 20 **Defendants-Appellees**
**.** * 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22 23

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** VIKAS SAREEN, pro se , Flushing, 1 New York. 2 3 **FOR APPELLEES:** MEGAN LEE, The Port Authority of 4 New York and New Jersey, New 5 York, New York. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 8 Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, 9 J. ). 10 11 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 12 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 13 **AFFIRMED**

. 14 15 Vikas Sareen, pro se , appeals from the judgment of the 16 United States District Court for the Southern District of 17 New York (Engelmayer, J. ), dismissing his complaint on 18 summary judgment

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 19 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 22 Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no 23 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 24 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 56(a); see generallyAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 26 U.S. 242 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant 27 of summary judgment. Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc. , 313 28 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002). 29 30 Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially 31 the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and 32 well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen 33 has offered no evidence that he was passed over for 34 promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his 35 position at the Port Authority still existed at the end of 36 his voluntary leave, or that the decisionmakers who denied 37 his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in 38 retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent 39 Sareen’s claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law. 40 41

2For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 1 Sareen’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 2 the district court. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 6 7

3