SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Dario Garó, pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court granting the Defendant-Appellee Federal Express Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the specification of issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and 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 are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, “eonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Upon our review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We have considered Garo’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. For substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her thorough and well-rea *330 soned report and recommendation, the judgement of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.