SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Gerard E. Schultz (“plaintiff’) appeals from an October 7, 2009 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Newsday, Inc. (“Newsday”) and Timothy P. Knight (jointly, “defendants”) with respect to all of plaintiffs federal claims. 1 On appeal, plaintiff asserts that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on his claims that he was terminated from his employment with Newsday in violation of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. 2 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See, e.g., Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, LLC, 628 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, plaintiff clearly failed to produce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Id. Although he vigorously disagrees with News day’s stated reasons for his termination — namely, that he lied to Tribune Company lawyers investigating allegations of fraud, 3 participated in conduct related to the fraud, and violated Newsda/s Code of Conduct by failing to report the fraud — he fails to cite any evidence in the record that his termination was related to his taking medical leave or to his entitlement to disability benefits. Rather, plaintiff principally maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his role in allegedly “blowing] the whistle” on News-day’s fraud. Plaintiff-Appellant’s Br. at 7. Accordingly, we find no error in the Dis *28 trict Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. We AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its careful and well-reasoned Memorandum and Order, Schultz v. Tribune Co., Inc., No. 06-CV-4800, 2009 WL 3246787 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2009).