Beachum v. Awisco New York Corp.

11-1412-cv
Beachum v. AWISCO New York Corp.
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 Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 16th day
of February, two thousand twelve.
Present:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges,
LEE H. ROSENTHAL,
District Judge.*
________________________________________________
KYER L. BEACHUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 11-1412-cv
AWISCO NEW YORK CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee,
LOCAL 810, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
*
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, sitting by designation.
For Plaintiff-Appellant: NEAL BRICKMAN (Richard Jefferson, on the brief), The Law
Offices of Neal Brickman, P.C., New York, N.Y.
For Defendant-Appellee: ADAM M. HARRIS (Tonianne Florentino, on the brief) Collazo
Florentino & Keil LLP, New York, N.Y.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Sullivan, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Kyer L. Beachum appeals from a March 18, 2011 Memorandum and
Order in which the district court, among other things, (1) granted summary judgment in favor of
AWISCO New York Corporation (“AWISCO”) on Beachum’s claims for race discrimination
and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b); and the New York State Human Rights
Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq.; (2) denied Beachum’s motion to amend the
complaint; and (3) declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Beachum’s claims under
the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-109 et seq. We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case and the issues on
appeal.
We review an award of summary judgment de novo, see El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,
627 F.3d 931, 933 (2d Cir. 2010), and we will affirm only where “the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm for substantially the
reasons stated in the district court’s careful, comprehensive, and well-reasoned opinion. See
2
Beachum v. AWISCO, 785 F. Supp. 2d 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Briefly stated, summary judgment
was appropriate because, among other reasons, Beachum failed to adduce evidence sufficient to
create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether AWISCO’s proffered legitimate, non-
discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for terminating Beachum’s employment were
pretextual. Id. at 97-98.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion.
Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003). Leave to amend is routinely
denied where, inter alia, amending the complaint would be futile or where the non-moving party
would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d
184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). “[W]here the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that he would be able to
amend his complaint in a manner which would survive dismissal, opportunity to replead is
rightfully denied.” Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 1999). Under the
circumstances of this case, we conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion in
denying Beachum’s motion to amend as futile. Beachum, 785 F. Supp. 2d at 104-05.
We have considered Beachum’s other arguments on appeal and find them to be wholly
without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
3