Case Name: John HOCKENJOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-11
Citations: 695 F. App'x 15
Docket Number: 16-1777-cv
Parties: John HOCKENJOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 15–17

Head Matter:
John HOCKENJOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee.
16-1777-cv
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
August 11, 2017
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Gerald Cohen (Joshua P. Fitch, on the brief), Cohen & Fitch LLP, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Ira J. Lipton (Damian R. Cavaleri, Miriam J. Manber, on the brief), Hoguet
PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant John Hockenjos, Jr., appeals from a May 18, 2016 judgment of the District Court in favor of defendant-appellee MTA Metro-North Railroad ("Metro-North"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Metro-North on Hockenjos's claims of retaliation and interference under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hockenjos's remaining New York state law claims. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
"[W]e review de novo a [district court's] grant of summary judgment under Rule 56 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], construing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2015). "Summary judgment is required where 'the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 39 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Athough the evidence is viewed in favor of the non-moving party, "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). It is insufficient to "rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation" to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon such review, we conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Metro-North. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Metro-North on Hockenjos's interference claim for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court. As to Hockenjos's retaliation claim, -we agree that he has failed to present evidence that would enable a trier of fact to conclude that Metro-North's reasons for termination were pretextual under the "motivating factor" causation standard. See Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc., No. 16-1318-cv, 864 F.3d 158, 166-67, 2017 WL 3044628, at *5 (2d Cir. July 19, 2017).
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of Hockenjos's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. The May 18, 2016 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
. On appeal, Hockenjos argues for the first time that his leave in December of 2012 and January of 2013 was FMLA related. We decline to consider this argument. See Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014) ("[I]t is a well-established gen eral rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)).