12-3947 McPherson v. The Hotel Plaza Athenee, NYC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of November, two thousand thirteen.

PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

Racquel McPherson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 12-3947

The Hotel Plaza Athenee, NYC, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Racquel McPherson, pro se, South Hempstead, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE HOTEL PLAZA ATHENEE, NYC: Judith A. Stoll, Kane Kessler, P.C., New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Bethany Aryn Davis Noll, Sudarsana Srinivasan & Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: Sarah Sheive Normand, Benjamin H. Torrance & Bertrand Madsen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE NEW YORK HOTEL AND MOTEL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 6 UNION: Barry Neal Saltzman, Pitta & Giblin LLP, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Nathan, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Racquel McPherson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district

court’s order dismissing her complaint and granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of

defendant-appellees. She has also filed a motion for “Reversal of the Verdict by the District

Court.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of

the case, and the issues on appeal.

McPherson has not raised any substantive challenge to the district court’s legal analysis.

She has therefore forfeited any such challenge. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown,

(2d Cir. 1995). In any event, her claims must fail for the reasons articulated in the district

court’s well-reasoned opinion.

2 We have considered all of McPherson’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. Accordingly, we DENY McPherson’s motion and AFFIRM the judgment of the

district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3