Case Name: Leroy J. HOLDMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE, Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-02
Citations: 146 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: Docket No. 04-3843-CV
Parties: Leroy J. HOLDMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE, Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
Leroy J. HOLDMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE, Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 04-3843-CV.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 2, 2005.
Leroy J. Holdmeyer, Ivoryton, CT., for Appellant, pro se.
Lauren M. Nash, Assistant United States Attorney (Kevin J. O’Connor, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, William J. Nardini, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New Haven, CT., for Appellee.
Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Leroy J. Holdmeyer appeals from a June 14, 2004, judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Peter C. Dorsey, Judge) granting summary judgment for defendant-appellee Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Familiarity with the facts and procedural history is assumed.
On appeal, Holdmeyer argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant-appellee. For substantially the same reasons identified in the district court's opinion of June 9, 2004, we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Holdmeyer's first claim on timeliness grounds. Holdmeyer's evidence regarding the other three "issues" do not demonstrate that he was subject to an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus. See generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).
We have carefully considered Holdmeyer's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.