SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Aden Whitfield, pro se, appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing his claim for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“Summary judgment is appropriate only ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a)). We resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-movant. Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). 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).

Upon such review, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Brown’s thorough report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Whitfield’s timely objection. See Whitfield v. Am. Storage & Transp., No. 12-cv-1622, 2014 WL 204705 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2014), adopting Whitfield v. Am. Storage & Transp., No. 12-cv-1622 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013) (report and recommendation). We have considered all of Whitfield’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.