Case Name: Abdus SHAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-17
Citations: 357 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 08-5340-cv
Parties: Abdus SHAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
Abdus SHAHID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-5340-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2009.
Abdus Shahid, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Susan Paulson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, The City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Abdus Shahid, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.), granting summary judgment to Appellee on Appellant's discrimination claims. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, that Appellant did not demonstrate that Appellee's non-discriminatory, legitimate business reasons for the alleged discriminatory employment actions were a pretext for discrimination. See Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-55, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Fisher v. Vassar Coll, 70 F.3d 1420 (2d Cir.1995).
We have considered Appellant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.