Amna v. New York Department of Health

Second Circuit

Amna v. New York Department of Health

505 F. App'x 44

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2012

DocketNo. 11-4562-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 F. App'x 44 (Amna v. New York Department of Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amna v. New York Department of Health, 505 F. App'x 44 (2d Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Tanvir Amna (“Amna”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment for defendants-appel-lees (“defendants”) in her employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “resolv[e] all ambiguities and draw[] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the [45]*45same reasons stated by Chief Judge Amon in her thorough and well-reasoned order, dated September 30, 2011.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Amna’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the October 3, 2011 judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Tanvir Amna (“Amna”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment for defendants-appel-lees (“defendants”) in her employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “resolv[e] all ambiguities and draw[] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the [45]*45same reasons stated by Chief Judge Amon in her thorough and well-reasoned order, dated September 30, 2011.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Amna’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the October 3, 2011 judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 F. App'x 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amna-v-new-york-department-of-health-ca2-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack