
    Luciano ROSARIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-3661.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 5, 2013.
    Luciano Rosario, Bronx, NY, pro se.
    Francis F. Caputo, Karen M. Griffin, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: WALKER, and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Luciano Rosario, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s judgment dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), his claim for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and “ ‘resolv[e] all ambiguities and draw[ ] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.’ ” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009)). Summary judgment is appropriate “only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Rosario’s claims. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Engel-mayer in his comprehensive opinion of August 3, 2012. See Rosario v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 10 Civ. 6160(PAE), 2012 WL 3155029 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2012).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Rosario’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  