Filed: Jan. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-3746-cv Singleton v. Holder UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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"
Summary: 08-3746-cv Singleton v. Holder UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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")..
More
08-3746-cv
Singleton v. Holder
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
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 A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 29th day of January, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
ROBERT D. SACK,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
__________________________________________
Bernard Singleton,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 08-3746-cv
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., *
United States Department of Justice,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is substituted for Michael
B. Mukasey as Defendant in this case.
FOR APPELLANT: Bernard Singleton, Newport News, VA
FOR APPELLEE: Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States
Attorney, Southern District of New
York, Daniel P. Filor and Sarah S.
Normand, Assistant United States
Attorneys, of counsel, New York,
N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Lynch, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Appellant Bernard Singleton, pro se, appeals the grant
of summary judgment dismissing his claims of discrimination
and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. We assume the parties’ familiarity with
the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case,
and the issues on appeal.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, and
ask whether the district court properly concluded that there
were no genuine issues of material fact and that 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). In determining whether there are genuine issues
2
of material fact, we are “required to 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). However, “conclusory
statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to
defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New
York,
316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).
Here, an independent review of the record and relevant
case law reveals that the district court properly granted
the Government’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the
district court judgment for substantially the same reasons
stated by the district court in its thorough and well-
reasoned opinion and order.
We have considered Singleton’s remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3