Case Name: Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES and New York City Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-23
Citations: 423 F. App'x 24
Docket Number: No. 10-4005-cv
Parties: Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES and New York City Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES and New York City Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-4005-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 23, 2011.
Kyle Jiggetts, Bronx, NY, pro se.
Matthew D. Crawford, Martenson, Has-brouck & Simon LLP, Atlanta, GA, for appellee AlliedBarton Security Services.
Larry A. Sonnenshein, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), City of New York, New York, NY, for appellee New York City Department of Transportation.
PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Kyle Jiggetts, pro se, appeals from a judgment adopting the Magistrate Judge's order denying Jig-getts's motion to compel discovery and granting summary judgment to defendants, AlliedBarton Security Services and New York City Department of Transportation, and dismissing Jiggetts's discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. ("ADA "). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgnent, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). "Summary judgment is appropriate only 'if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Sousa v. Roque, 578 F.3d 164, 169 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 102 (2d Cir.2008); see generally Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) ("A district court has abuse[d] its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." (quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for substantially the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, which the District Court adopted in toto. Further, Jiggetts's challenge to the order of the Magistrate Judge denying Jiggetts's motion to compel discovery fails; because the motion was premature, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Jiggetts's other arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.