SUMMARY ORDER

Teofil Boata appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) on Boata’s claims alleging age, race, and national origin discrimination, and on his retaliation claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). “Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. In making this determination, we “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). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere 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). Upon reviewing the record de novo, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Pfizer, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough January 31, 2013 Memorandum Decision & Order.

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