Sareen v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Full title: VIKAS SAREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 5, 2015

592 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2015)

Opinion

14-34-cv

02-05-2015

VIKAS SAREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, SUSAN M. BAER, RICHARD J. LOUIS, ADRIAN JOHNSTON, JAMES A. STEVEN, RENE PEARSON-SMALLS, Defendants-Appellees.

FOR APPELLANT: VIKAS SAREEN, pro se, Flushing, New York. FOR APPELLEES: MEGAN LEE, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, New York.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

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 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 5^th day of February, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges .

FOR APPELLANT:

VIKAS SAREEN, pro se, Flushing, New York.

FOR APPELLEES:

MEGAN LEE, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, New York.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.).

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

Vikas Sareen, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.), dismissing his complaint on summary judgment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Summary judgment must be granted if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002).

Upon review of the record, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. After extensive discovery, Sareen has offered no evidence that he was passed over for promotions because of discriminatory reasons, or that his position at the Port Authority still existed at the end of his voluntary leave, or that the decisionmakers who denied his request for reinstatement were aware of, and acted in retaliation for, his earlier complaint. Thus, to the extent Sareen's claims are timely, they fail as a matter of law.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Sareen's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK