SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Beverly Riddle, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s April 19, 2013 summary judgment dismissing her claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-54, against her former employer and various of its subsidiaries and employees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer 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 that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmov-ant; the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). 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).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record and relevant case law in light of these principles, we affirm for substantially the same reasons *6 articulated by the District Court in its decision of April 17, 2013.

We have considered all of the arguments raised by Riddle on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court’s April 19, 2013 judgment.