14-34-cv

Sareen v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 5th 4 day of February, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 VIKAS SAREEN, 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-34-cv

16

17 THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW

18 JERSEY, SUSAN M. BAER, RICHARD J.

19 LOUIS, ADRIAN JOHNSTON, JAMES A.

20 STEVEN, RENE PEARSON-SMALLS, 

Defendants-Appellees.* 21

22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

23

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to

amend the official caption in this case to conform with the

caption above.

1
1 FOR APPELLANT: VIKAS SAREEN, pro se, Flushing,

2 New York.

3

4 FOR APPELLEES: MEGAN LEE, The Port Authority of

5 New York and New Jersey, New

6 York, New York.

7

8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer,

10 J.).

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

14 AFFIRMED. 

15

16 Vikas Sareen, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the

17 United States District Court for the Southern District of

18 New York (Engelmayer, J.), dismissing his complaint on

19 summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

20 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

21 presented for review. 

22

23 Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no

24 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

25 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

27 U.S. 242 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant

28 of summary judgment. Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313

29 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002).

30

31 Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially

32 the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and

33 well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen

34 has offered no evidence that he was passed over for

35 promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his

36 position at the Port Authority still existed at the end of

37 his voluntary leave, or that the decisionmakers who denied

38 his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in

39 retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent

40 Sareen’s claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law.

41

2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

2 Sareen’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

3 the district court.

4

5 FOR THE COURT:

6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

7

3