SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Earlyn Walker (“plaintiff’), pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee University of Rochester, Strong Memorial Hospital (“defendant”) in plaintiffs Title VII action claiming unlawful retaliation after she lodged complaints of racial discrimination. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157,160 (2d Cir. 1999). We will affirm the grant of summary judgment by the District Court if the record indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An independent review of the record, case law, and arguments on appeal in the instant case reveals that the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of August 14, 2008, Walker v. Univ. of Rochester, Strong Mem. Hosp., No. 04-CV-6482, 2008 WL 3851838 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2008), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.

*189 For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.