Ogodor v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Ogodor v. City of New York

36 F. App'x 470

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-7395

StatusPublished

This text of 36 F. App'x 470 (Ogodor v. City of New York) 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

Ogodor v. City of New York, 36 F. App'x 470 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District [471]*471Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Ellis’s Report and Recommendation dated February 26, 2001. The record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the party against whom summary judgment was granted, does not contain evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the employment decisions of which plaintiff complains were based on his age, national origin, or disability. See generally Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2000); Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36-37 (2d Cir.1994).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District [471]*471Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Ellis’s Report and Recommendation dated February 26, 2001. The record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the party against whom summary judgment was granted, does not contain evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the employment decisions of which plaintiff complains were based on his age, national origin, or disability. See generally Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2000); Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36-37 (2d Cir.1994).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 F. App'x 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogodor-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack