Case Name: Bernard OGODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, City of New York, Civil Service Commission, City of New York, Citywide Administration Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-11
Citations: 36 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: Docket No. 01-7395
Parties: Bernard OGODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, City of New York, Civil Service Commission, City of New York, Citywide Administration Services, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Bernard OGODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, City of New York, Civil Service Commission, City of New York, Citywide Administration Services, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Docket No. 01-7395.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 11, 2002.
Bernard Ogodor, N.Y., NY, pro se.
Ellen Raviteh, Ass’t Corp. Counsel, N.Y., NY, for Appellees.
Present KEARSE, McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS, District Judge.
Honorable George B. Daniels, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendants.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Ellis's Report and Recommendation dated February 26, 2001. The record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the party against whom summary judgment was granted, does not contain evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the employment decisions of which plaintiff complains were based on his age, national origin, or disability. See generally Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2000); Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36-37 (2d Cir.1994).
We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.