Filed: Dec. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-534 Whitfield v. American Storage and Transport 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 NOTA
Summary: 14-534 Whitfield v. American Storage and Transport 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 NOTAT..
More
14-534
Whitfield v. American Storage and Transport
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 19th day of December, two thousand fourteen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 Alden T. Whitfield,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16
17 v. 14-534
18
19
20 American Storage and Transport, Inc.,
21
22 Defendant-Appellee.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Alden Whitfield, pro se, St. Albans, NY.
26
27 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Alan Pearl, Alan B. Pearl & Associates, P.C.,
28 Syosset, NY.
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
2 New York (Feuerstein, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
5 Appellant Alden Whitfield, pro se, appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing
6 his claim for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We assume
7 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the
8 issues on appeal.
9 “Summary judgment is appropriate only ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine
10 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
11 Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys.,
760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
12 We resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-movant. Nationwide Life
13 Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc.,
182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is
14 appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for
15 the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587
16 (1986).
17 Upon such review, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge
18 Brown’s thorough report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Whitfield’s
19 timely objection. See Whitfield v. Am. Storage & Transp., No. 12-cv-1622 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16,
20 2014), adopting Whitfield v. Am. Storage & Transp., No. 12-cv-1622 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013)
21 (report and recommendation). We have considered all of Whitfield’s remaining arguments and
22 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