Case Name: Ben SONG, United States Post Office Clerk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-29
Citations: 363 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 08-2596-cv
Parties: Ben SONG, United States Post Office Clerk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, WALKER, and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
Ben SONG, United States Post Office Clerk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-2596-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2010.
Ben Song, Rego Park, NY, pro se.
Matthew L. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney (of Counsel); (Preet Bhar-ara, United States Attorney General for the Southern District of New York; Ross E. Morrison, Assistant United States Attorney (of Counsel) on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, WALKER, and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Ben Song, pro se, appeals the district court's grant of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing his complaints in S.D.N.Y. Dkt. Nos. 05-cv-8132 and 06-cv-904, which alleged employment discrimination and retaliation based on Song's race, national origin, col- or, and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621-634. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
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. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003); Republic Nat'l Bank v. Delta Air Lines, 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted).
Even construing, as we must, all the facts in Song's favor, the district court properly granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Moreover, we have considered all of Song's claims of error and determined them to be without merit; therefore, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.