Filed: Jun. 27, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2011
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of July 15, 2009, is AFFIRMED. Pro se plaintiff George Ockimey appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Ockimey's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, N.Y. Civil Rights Law 40-
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of July 15, 2009, is AFFIRMED. Pro se plaintiff George Ockimey appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Ockimey's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, N.Y. Civil Rights Law 40-c..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of July 15, 2009, is AFFIRMED.
Pro se plaintiff George Ockimey appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Ockimey's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c, and N.Y. Executive Law § 296, and for breach of contract. We assume familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
We review an award of summary judgment de novo, considering whether there was a genuine issue as to any material fact and, if not, whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). We "resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the burden rests on the movant to show that no genuine factual dispute exists, see Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass'n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999), a moving defendant is not required to file affidavits (or other materials) disproving the plaintiff's claims, see Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[T]he moving party may obtain summary judgment by showing that little or no evidence may be found in support of the nonmoving party's case."); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment in favor of defendants was warranted for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned and thorough opinion.
We have considered Ockimey's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
