Case Name: Justo A. VASQUEZ-BONILLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS LOCAL # 8, National Roofing Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-19
Citations: 432 F. App'x 28
Docket Number: No. 10-1101-cv
Parties: Justo A. VASQUEZ-BONILLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS LOCAL # 8, National Roofing Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, JOHN GLEESON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
Justo A. VASQUEZ-BONILLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS LOCAL # 8, National Roofing Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1101-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2011.
Justo A. Vasquez-Bonilla, Jr., Bronx, N.Y., pro se.
Jeremy E. Meyer (Joseph T. Cleary, on the brief), Cleary & Josem LLP, Philadelphia, PA, James E. Neuman, New York, N.Y., for Appellees.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, JOHN GLEESON, District Judge.
Judge John Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation,

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant, pro se, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Appellees and dismissing his employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that 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). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order.
We have considered Appellant's other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.