Case Name: J.D. CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-20
Citations: 488 F. App'x 516
Docket Number: No. 11-2614
Parties: J.D. CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT A. KATZMANN and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 516–516

Head Matter:
J.D. CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-2614.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2012.
J.D. Carpenter, Mount Pocono, PA, pro se.
Larry Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT A. KATZMANN and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Appellant J.D. Carpenter, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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). Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Applying these standards, we conclude that Ms. Carpenter's appeal is without merit for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned order. Carpenter v. City of New York, 2011 WL 2118599 (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2011). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
. At oral argument, Ms. Carpenter indicated that she located evidence, not presented to the district court, that might rebut the presumptions and inferences that operated to establish to the district court's satisfaction that her suit was untimely. Nothing in this order prevents Ms. Carpenter from filing a motion in the district court to bring any such evidence to the court's attention. We express no opinion as to whether any such motion would be successful.