
    Debra Denise HOGANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELL MAGAZINES/PENNY PRESS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-2090-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 19, 2010.
    Debra Denise Hogans, pro se, Brooklyn, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Peter D. Stergios, David S. Kim, McCar-ter & English, LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Debra Denise Hogans, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.), dismissing her discrimination claims, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, taking as true all plausible allegations of fact in the complaint and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir.2009).

Before bringing suit in federal court under Title VII, ADEA, and ADA, a private plaintiff must file timely administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1), (f)(1) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(d), 633(b) (explaining the statutory limitations of ADEA claims); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (applying § 2000e-5(e) to ADA claims). In New York, a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 712 (2d Cir.1996). Hogans filed her charge with the EEOC on April 9, 2007. We conclude, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, that the conduct about which Hogans complained took place on or before her August 4, 2004 termination from employment, and that, therefore, her claims were time-barred.

We have considered all of Hogan’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  