Case Name: Ray CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-07
Citations: 553 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 12-4686
Parties: Ray CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 105–106

Head Matter:
Ray CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-4686.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 7, 2014.
Ray Castellanos, Valhalla, NY, pro se.
Jean L. Schmidt, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
The Honorable Loma G. Schofield, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Ray Castellanos, pro se, sued his former employers Montefiore Medical Center and Care Management Company, along with several former co-workers, for allegedly discriminating against him on the basis of his age and for creating a hostile work environment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Cas-tellanos principally alleged that a manager made an ageist comment to him and he was unfairly stripped of some of his job responsibilities. The defendants argued that Castellanos was terminated for poor performance. The district court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion. On appeal, Castellanos argues that he established both age discrimination and a hostile work environment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, mindful that "[sjummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). After a review of the record, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.