13-1977
         Parinello v. Bausch & Lomb



                                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 TO A SUMMARY
     ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1               At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
 2       Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
 3       20th day of August, two thousand fourteen.
 4
 5       PRESENT:
 6                   JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 7                   DENNIS JACOBS,
 8                   RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 9                         Circuit Judges.
10       _____________________________________
11
12       Anthony D. Parinello,
13
14                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16                         v.                                                      13-1977
17
18       Bausch & Lomb,
19
20                         Defendant-Appellee.
21       _____________________________________
22
23
24       FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                            Anthony D. Parinello, pro se, Englewood, CO
25                                                           (Christina A. Agola, Christina A. Agola, PLLC,
26                                                           Rochester, NY, filed a brief on behalf of Appellant
27                                                           before being relieved).
28
29       FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                             Peter Jones and Kseniya Premo, Bond, Schoeneck
30                                                           & King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY.
 1             Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

 2   New York (Telesca, J.).

 3             UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

 4   DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 5             Appellant Anthony Parinello, pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

 6   judgment, dismissing his employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity

 7   with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

 8             We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that

 9   “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine

10   issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

11   Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 

, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). On summary

12   judgment, the court must consider “not whether . . . the evidence unmistakably favors one side

13   or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence

14   presented.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

, 252 (1986). However, “[w]hen

15   opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so

16   that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for

17   purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 

, 380

18   (2007).

19             Upon such review, we conclude that Parinello’s appeal is without merit substantially for

20   the reasons articulated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order. Parinello v.

21   Bausch & Lomb, No. 10-cv-6519 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2013). We have considered all of

22   Parinello’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.


                                                       2
1   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

2                                       FOR THE COURT:
3                                       Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
5




                                           3