SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Gina Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing her complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and corresponding state and local law, for discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

*24 We review an order 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, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; 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) (citing Cronin 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).

The District Court concluded that there was “no evidence that [Williams] was subjected to discrimination or' retaliation at all, let alone based on her race or gender, or that there was anything hostile about her work environment.” App’x 11. After an independent review of the record we agree with the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants, and we affirm that judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in its thorough order. In addition, Williams makes no substantive arguments on appeal with respect to her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or hostile work environment claims. She has therefore waived review of these issues. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995).

We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.