Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: January 22, 2026
• Docket: 24-2524-cv
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-2524-cv Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of January, two thousand twenty-six.

PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

Abbelen Maxius,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 24-2524

Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc., Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Christopher Berner, JD, Judith S. Block,

Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Abbelen Maxius, pro se, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Rory J. McEvoy, Brittany A. Buccellato, Akerman, LLP, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York (Schofield, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Abbelen Maxius, at first pro se but then represented by pro bono counsel, sued her

former employer, Mount Sinai Health Systems, and two supervisors, alleging she was

subjected to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment based on her race and

other protected characteristics, and to retaliation after engaging in protected activity.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, determining

that the conduct Maxius complained of was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to

support a hostile work environment claim, and that Maxius failed to meet her burdens

on her discrimination and retaliation claims. Maxius appeals pro se and moves to

supplement the record. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the

procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

2 We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the district

court’s opinion granting summary judgment. Maxius has abandoned any argument on

appeal because her one-page brief contains no statement of facts, no legal discussion, no

citation to authority, and no argument as to any error the district court might have made;

she instead invites the Court to search for error in hundreds of pages of exhibits and

transcripts. Briefing requirements for pro se litigants are not rigidly enforced, and pro se

filings should be liberally construed to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. See

Green v. Dep’t of Educ., 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021). But the Court “need not

manufacture claims of error for an appellant proceeding pro se,” LoSacco v. City of

Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995), and we decline to do so here. See also id. (noting

that “pro se litigants should anticipate that this court may dismiss an appeal where the

brief submitted contains no identifiable argument”) (quoting McCottrell v. EEOC, 726 F.2d

350, 351 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Maxius’s pending

motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court