SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Harvey Rosenfeld, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee, Hostos Community College (“Hostos”), as to Rosenfeld’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims premised on Hostos’s decision not to reappoint Rosenfeld as an adjunct professor. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and issues on appeal, which we refer to only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Cronin *73 v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir. 1995)). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant because, for the reasons stated in the district court’s order, no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Rosenfeld put forth sufficient evidence allowing for an inference of age discrimination or that the performance-related issues on which Hostos relied in its decision not to reappoint Rosenfeld were mere pretext. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order.

We have considered Rosenfeld’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.