Case Name: Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRISTAR PATROL SERVICE, INC., Special Service Bureau, Defendants-Cross-Claimants, NYC Department of City wide Administration Services, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-23
Citations: 423 F. App'x 25
Docket Number: No. 10-3765-cv
Parties: Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRISTAR PATROL SERVICE, INC., Special Service Bureau, Defendants-Cross-Claimants, NYC Department of City wide Administration Services, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRISTAR PATROL SERVICE, INC., Special Service Bureau, Defendants-Cross-Claimants, NYC Department of City wide Administration Services, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-3765-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 23, 2011.
Kyle Jiggetts, New York, NY, pro se.
Susan Paulson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant, pro se, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Ap-pellee, and dismissing his discrimination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. ("ADA"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court- properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that 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). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, "conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation.
We have considered Appellant's other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.