SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Samuel Tuccio, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, and dismissing his complaint. Tuccio alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); and New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-297. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir. 2004). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). However, reliance upon conclusory statements or mere allegations is not sufficient to defeat a sum *7 mary judgment motion. See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532-33 (2d Cir. 1993); Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough February 27, 2013 report and recommendation, which was adopted over Tuc-cio’s objection in the district court’s April 17, 2013 order.

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