
    ManMohan S. JAWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROME DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES SERVICES OFFICE, Thomas A. Maul, Philip Catchpole, Arthur Holmberg, Tom St. Dennis, George Schlotterer, Toni Verkruysse, Lisa O’Bryan, Robert Lecher, Joseph Parzych, Mary Hall-Katz, Faith Nolan, Joseph Szempruch, Linda Edwards, Charles Soper, Richard Moon, Stephen Smits, Anthony Labate, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-2038-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2010.
    ManMohan S. Jawa, pro se, Hope Mills, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Zainab A. Chaudhry, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Andrew M. Cuo-mo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, New York, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.
    
      
       District Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff ManMohan S. Jawa appeals pro se from a decision granting defendants judgment as a matter of law on his discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract claims. Where a district court grants judgment on partial findings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c), we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 960 (2d Cir.1998). Under this standard, “[tjhere is a strong presumption in favor of [the] trial court’s findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence,” and we will upset such a finding only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Travellers Int’l, A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 41 F.3d 1570, 1574 (2d Cir.1994) (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also SNC S.L.B. v. M/V Newark Bay, 111 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir.1997). In applying these principles to this appeal, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings.

As an initial matter, we note that plaintiff has raised no specific challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, we liberally construe his submissions to include these claims. See Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that courts are required to construe pro se papers “liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest”).

Having conducted an independent review of the record, we identify no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact and affirm its dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for substantially the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. See Jawa v. Rome Dev. Disabilities Servs., No. 97 Civ. 1346 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2006).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  