SUMMARY ORDER

Nelson Young appeals, pro se, the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Allerton Associates Housing Complex and Benjamin Development Inc. 1 Young argues that the district court erred in dismissing his employment discrimination claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 183 (2d Cir. 2006). In so doing, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Young and ask “whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact” and whether Allerton and Benjamin Development are “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

Having conducted a thorough and independent review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment in favor of Allerton and Benjamin Development was proper. 2 As the district court ruled, Young failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. See Shannon v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 332 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2003). However, even assuming, arguendo, that Young established a prima facie case of discrimination, his claim must fail. Defendants offered “legitimate nondiscriminatory reason[s]” for his termination and Young can point to no evidence “that reasonably supports a finding of prohibited discrimination.” Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2010).

Young maintains that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without allowing him an opportunity for discovery. “Only in the rarest of cases may summary judgment be granted *723 against a plaintiff who has not been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery.” Hellstrom, v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, we conclude that the district court committed no error in this case because Young failed to file an affidavit setting forth the essential facts he sought to discover. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). “[T]he failure to file an affidavit under Rule 56(f) is itself grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.” Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir. 1994).

Even if Young had been granted the discovery he sought, it would not have changed the. outcome of this matter. When the district court asked what evidence Young hoped to present if discovery were permitted, Young indicated that he would submit evidence regarding the deterioration in his health subsequent to his termination. Such evidence could not have aided Young in establishing a prima facie case or in rebutting defendants’ proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Young was “railroaded into his offer of proof in opposition to summary judgment.” Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.