Case Name: Paul EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN, Gregory Long, John Rorer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-03
Citations: 88 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 03-7487
Parties: Paul EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN, Gregory Long, John Rorer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: STRAUB, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and STANTON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Paul EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN, Gregory Long, John Rorer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7487.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 3, 2004.
Paul Evans, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
George F. Brenlla, Clifton, Budd & DeMaria LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: STRAUB, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and STANTON, District Judge.
The Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Evans ("Evans") appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) granting summary judgment to defendants on his claims of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court. See Evans v. New York Botanical Garden, 253 F.Supp.2d 650, 659-61 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (concluding that defendants had established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Evans's discharge, and that Evans failed to introduce sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
The District Court also denied plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to assert related discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff offers no argument explaining why the denial was erroneous, and we therefore decline to consider the amendment issue. See, e.g., Taylor v. Rodriguez, 238 F.3d 188, 196-97 (2d Cir.2001) ("[Plaintiff] includes in his appellate brief no argument regarding [certain claims]. Consequently, we deem these claims abandoned.").