
    Terrance B. FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, a/k/a Amtrak, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-0833-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 19, 2010.
    Terrance D. Fox, Schenectady, NY, pro se.
    Glen P. Doherty, McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C., Albany, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, and JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International. Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Terrance D. Fox, pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court granting Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing his hostile work environment and retaliation claims under 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.

Because Fox does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of hostile work environment claims, those claims are abandoned. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, it is abandoned); see also Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that a party’s “single conclusory sentence” in his brief on appeal regarding a claim of error was tantamount to a waiver of that claim); Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”).

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus 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); Republic Nat’l Bank of New York v. Delta Air Lines, 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, even construing all the facts in Fox’s favor as we must, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Amtrak. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as articulated by that court. Additionally, we have considered all of Fox’s remaining claims of error and determined them to be without merit; thus, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  