
    Rebecca JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-4362-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 7, 2015.
    Josephine S. Miller, Danbury, CT, for Appellant.
    
      Jill Lacedonia, Assistant Attorney General, and Ann E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General, Department Head, for George Jepsen, Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Appellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Rebecca Johnson appeals from the September 13, 2013 order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Connecticut Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) on Johnson’s claims of racial discrimination and retaliation 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, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). We resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsu-shita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DAS. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered the remainder of Johnson’s arguments and find them to be ■without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.  