Song v. Potter

Second Circuit

Song v. Potter

363 F. App'x 96

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 2010

Docket08-2596-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 F. App'x 96 (Song v. Potter) 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

Song v. Potter, 363 F. App'x 96 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Ben Song, pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing his complaints in S.D.N.Y. Dkt. Nos. 05-cv-8132 and 06-cv-904, which alleged employment discrimination and retaliation based on Song’s race, national origin, col- or, and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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); Republic Nat’l Bank v. Delta Air Lines, 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted).

Even construing, as we must, all the facts in Song’s favor, the district court properly granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Moreover, we have considered all of Song’s claims of error and determined them to be without merit; therefore, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Ben Song, pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing his complaints in S.D.N.Y. Dkt. Nos. 05-cv-8132 and 06-cv-904, which alleged employment discrimination and retaliation based on Song’s race, national origin, col- or, and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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); Republic Nat’l Bank v. Delta Air Lines, 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted).

Even construing, as we must, all the facts in Song’s favor, the district court properly granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Moreover, we have considered all of Song’s claims of error and determined them to be without merit; therefore, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F. App'x 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/song-v-potter-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack