Sareen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Second Circuit

Sareen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

592 F. App'x 34

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

Docket14-34-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 592 F. App'x 34 (Sareen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Sareen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 592 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Vikas Sareen, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.), dismissing his complaint on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Mario v. P &C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir.2002).

Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen has offered no evidence that he was passed over for promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his position at the *35 Port Authority still existed at the end of his voluntary leave, or that the decision-makers who denied his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent Sareen’s claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Sareen’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Vikas Sareen, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.), dismissing his complaint on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Mario v. P &C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir.2002).

Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen has offered no evidence that he was passed over for promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his position at the *35 Port Authority still existed at the end of his voluntary leave, or that the decision-makers who denied his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent Sareen’s claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Sareen’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 F. App'x 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sareen-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack