U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004

Babiker v. Ross University School of Medicine

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided January 26, 2004

86 F. App'x 457

Counsel

Nasir Abdalla Babiker, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se., Steven R. Haffner, Gordon & Haffner, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Hassan v. Fordham University (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
JF ex rel. DF v. Carmel Central School District (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
Pearson v. Walden University (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Kickertz v. New York University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Kickertz v. New York University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Nasir Abdalla Babiker appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Katz, M.J.) entered pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 19, 2000, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant’s complaint.

This Court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir. 1999). This court has noted that an extra measure of caution is merited when affirming a grant of summary judgment in discrimination cases because direct evidence of discriminatory intent is rare and such intent must often be inferred from evidence found in affidavits and depositions. See, e.g., Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994). Here, the district court, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Babiker, thoroughly reviewed his claims, and correctly granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion, we affirm. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.