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.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Ray Castellanos, pro se, sued his former employers Montefiore Medical Center and Care Management Company, along with several former co-workers, for allegedly discriminating against him on the basis of his age and for creating a hostile work environment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Castellanos principally alleged that a manager made an ageist comment to him and he was unfairly stripped of some of his job responsibilities. The defendants argued that Castellanos was terminated for poor performance. The district court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion. On appeal, Castellanos argues that he established both age discrimination and a hostile work environment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, mindful that "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). After a review of the record, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.