
    Ernestine WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPIRE VISION CENTERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-995-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 11, 2011.
    Ernestine Ward, Corning, NY, pro se.
    Kristen E. Smith (Thomas G. Eron, on the brief), Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, WALKER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Ernestine Ward, proceeding pro se, appeals from a February 19, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Larimer, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Empire Vision Centers, Inc., with respect to her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et see/., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Miller v. Wol-poff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In doing so, we determine whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of February 18, 2010. See Ward v. Empire Vision Ctrs., Inc., 686 F.Supp.2d 243 (W.D.N.Y.2010).

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  