09-1817-cv Persaud v. St. Vincent’s Services 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 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of June, two thousand and ten.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY , Circuit Judges, BRIAN M. COGAN , District Judge.* -------------------------------------------x MONICA G. PERSAUD , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 09-1817-cv ST. VINCENT’S SERVICES, INC ., ALLISON NELSON , Manager, ADEBAYO IYANDA, Director, JANICE ASHTON , Managing Director, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

* The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FOR APPELLANT: Monica G. Persaud, pro se, Greenpoint, New York.

FOR APPELLEES: Sean Close, Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP; New York, New York.

Appeal from a March 31, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra L. Townes, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Monica G. Persaud (“plaintiff”), pro se, brought this suit alleging various claims of employment discrimination against defendants-appellees St. Vincent’s Services, Allison Nelson, Adebayo Iyanda, and Janice Ashton (collectively, “defendants”). The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants with respect to each of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff then brought this timely appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this action, and the issues raised on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. We ask whether the District Court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” See Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have considered each of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal and have determined that they are meritless. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants for substantially the reasons set forth in the December 5, 2008 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (insofar as that Report and Recommendation was adopted by the District Court in its March 31, 2009 order).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the March 31, 2009 judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court