Case Name: Joseph P. McINERNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, The Mechanical Aeronautical Nuclear Engineering (Mane) Department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Mane Department Chairman John Tichy, Mane Graduate Coordinator Antoinette Maniatty, Mane Professor Leik Myrabo, Mane Professor Kenneth Jansen, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 583 F. App'x 17
Docket Number: No. 13-4218-cv
Parties: Joseph P. McINERNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, The Mechanical Aeronautical Nuclear Engineering (Mane) Department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Mane Department Chairman John Tichy, Mane Graduate Coordinator Antoinette Maniatty, Mane Professor Leik Myrabo, Mane Professor Kenneth Jansen, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
Joseph P. McINERNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, The Mechanical Aeronautical Nuclear Engineering (Mane) Department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Mane Department Chairman John Tichy, Mane Graduate Coordinator Antoinette Maniatty, Mane Professor Leik Myrabo, Mane Professor Kenneth Jansen, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-4218-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2014.
Joseph P. Mclnerney, Lowell, MA, pro se.
Michael E. Ginsberg, Pattison Sampson Ginsberg & Griffin PC, Troy, NY, for Ap-pellees.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Joseph P. Mclnerney, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his disability discrimination action following a bench trial, and moves to admit new evidence not previously presented to the district court. We review a district court's findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363, 367 (2d Cir.2008). In doing so here, we assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Our independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, nor were its legal conclusions in error. The trial record shows that Mclnerney failed to prove that he was not given reasonable accommodations, or that he was otherwise discriminated against because óf his disability. We, therefore, affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned decision of October 11, 2013.
We deny the motion to enlarge the record on appeal, as the proposed documents were not presented to the district court and Mclnerney has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting their consideration on appeal. See IBM Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1975) ("[AJbsent extraordinary circumstances, federal appellate courts will not consider rulings or evidence which are not part of the trial record.").
We have considered all of Mclnerney's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.