Opinion
16-3454
12-05-2017
SANDRA WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
For Plaintiff-Appellant: Sandra Wilson, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. For Defendant-Appellee: Craig R. Benson, Joseph E. Field, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY.
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of December, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. For Plaintiff-Appellant: Sandra Wilson, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. For Defendant-Appellee: Craig R. Benson, Joseph E. Field, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Sandra Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to appellee Air Serv Corporation ("Air Serv"), Wilson's former employer. Wilson sued Air Serv under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., asserting claims for wage discrimination, race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Wilson failed to respond to Air Serv's motion for summary judgment. After an independent examination of the record, the district court granted Air Serv's motion. This appeal follows. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, "resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all inferences against the moving party." Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep't, 706 F.3d 120, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). "Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, 'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). "Even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 242 (2d Cir. 2004). "If the evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant's burden of production, then summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented." Id. at 244 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Air Serv and affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its well-reasoned and thorough September 9, 2016 decision.
We have considered all of Wilson's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk