SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Freddie Lee Spruill (“Spruill” or “plaintiff’) appeals from a judgment of the District Court dated September 3, 2008 dismissing his claims for discrimination against the defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, North Central Bronx Hospital, Jacobi Hospital, the Office of the Inspector General, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 237 (“IBT”) (together, the “defendants”). In his complaint, Spruill asserted that defendants had discriminated against him and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq.

In a Memorandum and Order dated August 23, 2007, the District Court dismissed all claims against IBT for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Spruill v. NYC Health & Hosps. (Spruill I), No. 06 Civ. 11362, 2007 WL 2456960, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007). The Court also *270 dismissed, for failure to exhaust, Spruill’s Title VII claims for race discrimination and retaliation against the remaining defendants, but it declined to dismiss plaintiffs ADEA and ADA claims against those defendants. Id. at *3-5. One year later, in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2008, the District Court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on Spruill’s ADA and ADEA claims, finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or disability discrimination. Spruill v. NYC Health & Hosps. (Spruill II), No. 06 Civ. 11362, 2008 WL 3911015 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We find no error in the District Court’s careful analysis of plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its two thorough and well-reasoned Memoranda and Orders. See Spruill II, 2008 WL 3911015; Spruill I, 2007 WL 2456960.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.