Summary
holding amendment would be futile where "the court lacks subject matter [jurisdiction] to entertain plaintiff's NLRA claims, as the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims"
Summary of this case from Estevez v. Consol. Bus Transit, Inc.Opinion
No. 09-3962-cv.
October 4, 2010.
Appeal from a September 11, 2009 judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Judge).
UPON CONSIDERATION WHERE-OF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.
Leslie-Ann Benjamin, pro se, Staten Island, NY, for Appellant.
Susan B. Eisner, Assistant Corporation Counsel, (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Leslie-Ann Benjamin appeals from the District Court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.
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. Reli-aStar Life Ins. Co. v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., 570 F.3d 513, 517 (2d Cir. 2009). 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," Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted), but "conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Benjamin's arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.