Case Name: Olga BATYREVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-09
Citations: 464 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 10-4460-cv
Parties: Olga BATYREVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Olga BATYREVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-4460-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 9, 2012.
Olga Batyreva, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Norman Taub Corenthal, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for DefendantAppellee.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Olga Batyreva, pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant in her action alleging discrimination and retaliation on the basis of age and national origin, and raising a claim of First Amendment retaliation. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
A district court's application of the principles of claim and issue preclusion is reviewed de novo. See Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 919 (2d Cir.2010). Likewise, we review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir.2011).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation of August 23, 2010, and the district court's decision of October 1, 2010.
We have considered all of Batyreva's additional arguments—including her arguments that the district judge was not impartial and that the defendant tried to improperly influence the outcome of the case—and And them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.