Castellanos v. Montefiore Medical Center

12-4686
Castellanos v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
7th day of February, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
REENA RAGGI,
Circuit Judges,
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD,*
District Judge.
_____________________________________
RAY CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 12-4686
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Ray Castellanos, pro se, Valhalla, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Jean L. Schmidt, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
New York, NY.
*
The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield, United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Preska, C.J.).
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.
2
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3