Case Name: Kenneth Steven TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, IBEW Local Union 589, Marilyn Kustoff, Manager of Maintenance of Equipment, Trials, Investigations and Grievances, A. Micheletti, Assistant Manager, Personnel Administration and Support, Dr. Teemaroli, Medical Department of the Long Island Railroad, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-31
Citations: 538 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 13-444-cv
Parties: Kenneth Steven TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, IBEW Local Union 589, Marilyn Kus-toff, Manager of Maintenance of Equipment, Trials, Investigations and Grievances, A. Micheletti, Assistant Manager, Personnel Administration and Support, Dr. Teemaroli, Medical Department of the Long Island Railroad, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Kenneth Steven TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, IBEW Local Union 589, Marilyn Kus-toff, Manager of Maintenance of Equipment, Trials, Investigations and Grievances, A. Micheletti, Assistant Manager, Personnel Administration and Support, Dr. Teemaroli, Medical Department of the Long Island Railroad, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-444-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2013.
Andrew J. Schatkin, Law Offices of Andrew J. Schatkin, Jericho, NY, for Appellant.
Kevin Patrick McCaffrey, Esq. (Richard L. Gans, Vice PresidenVGeneral Counsel and Secretary, on the brief), The Long Island Rail Road Company, Law Department, Jamaica, NY, for Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Long Island Rail Road Company, Marilyn Kustoff, and Antonia Micheletti, for Appellees.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Kenneth Steven Tucker appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action as time-barred. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Tucker's claims as time-barred. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough January 4, 2013 decision.
We have considered all of Tucker's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.