
    George M. BOGHOSSIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUDSON MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, any present or former parent corporations, affiliates, subsidiaries, division, joint ventures, partners, successors and assigned officers and Directors or agents thereof, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-3250-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 29, 2012.
    George M. Boghossian, pro se, Hacken-sack, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Eric Charles Stuart, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant George M. Boghos-sian (“Boghossian”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the June 21, 2011 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC and dismissing his claims of employment discrimination and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). “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)).

On appeal, Boghossian fails to raise any arguments with regard to his emotional distress claims, and he has therefore abandoned any such arguments. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995). As to the remainder of his claims, after an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm, substantially for the same reasons stated by the District Court in its order dated June 17, 2011.

We have considered Boghossian’s arguments on appeal and find each of them to be- without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the June 21, 2011 judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.  