*47 SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Paul Rozenfeld, pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing his complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law (“SHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“CHRL”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that “[sjummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).

As an initial matter, Rozenfeld has abandoned his challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration by not raising arguments concerning it. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally -will not be addressed on appeal.”); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) (deeming claims not raised on appeal by pro se litigant to be abandoned). Thus, we decline to consider it.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The district court correctly held that Roz-enfeld’s claims pursuant to Title VII, § 1983, the SHRL, and the CHRL failed because he signed the stipulation waiving these rights knowingly and voluntarily, and that his claims brought under the ADEA failed on the merits.

We have considered all of Rozenfeld’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.