Deveer v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO)

09-5026-cv
Deveer v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF
A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX 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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 22 nd day of September, two thousand and
5 ten.
6
7 PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12
13
14 WILLIAM B. DEVEER,
15
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 -v.- 09-5026-cv
19
20 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO),
21
22 Defendant-Appellee.
23
24
25
1 FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM B. DEVEER, pro se, Federal Way,
2 WA.
3
4 FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN J. RUSSO, Jackson Lewis, LLP,
5 Melville, NY.
6
7 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
8 Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.).
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be
12 AFFIRMED.
13 Appellant William B. Deveer appeals from the District
14 Court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of
15 Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) and
16 dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings
18 below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as
19 follows.
20 We review an order granting summary judgment de novo,
21 and ask whether the district court properly concluded that
22 there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the
23 moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
24 See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300
25 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine
26 issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all
27 ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in
2
1 favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.”
2 Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003)
3 (internal quotations omitted). However, “conclusory
4 statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to
5 defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New
6 York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).
7 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of
8 the record in light of these principles, we affirm the award
9 of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons
10 stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned
11 report and recommendation.
12
13
14
15
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
3