Case Name: Monique CODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI Inc., dba Olive Garden Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-28
Citations: 561 F. App'x 25
Docket Number: No. 13-655-cv
Parties: Monique CODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI Inc., dba Olive Garden Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
Monique CODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, Darden Restaurants, Inc., GMRI Inc., dba Olive Garden Jon-Jay Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-655-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 28, 2014.
Monique Cody, Brooklyn, N.Y., pro se.
John T. Bauer, Littler Mendelson P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Justin R. Marino, on the brief), for Appellees.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as noted above.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Monique Cody, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the district court compelling arbitration of her claims of wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
We affirm, for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, as adopted and supplemented by the district court. See Report & Recomm., Cody v. Darden Restaurants, No. 12-cv-484, 2012 WL 6863922 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012) (Dkt. No. 28); Order, No. 12-cv-484, 2013 WL 170367 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) (Dkt. No. 35). We have considered all of Appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.