
    Liuba MANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-2151-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2009.
    
      Liuba Manko, New York, NY, pro se.
    John Houston Pope (James G. Murphy, on the brief), Epstein Becker & Green P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable John F. Keenan, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Liuba Manko, pro se, brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206 et seq., and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.) dismissed plaintiffs religious discrimination and retaliation claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and held that her Equal Pay Act claim was time-barred. Following discovery, the district court (Buchwald, J.) granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs remaining Title VII claims for gender and national origin discrimination, her sexual harassment claim, and her ERISA claim. Plaintiff appeals both of these decisions, as well as the district court’s denial of her motion to compel discovery. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we find each of plaintiffs arguments to be without merit and affirm for substantially similar reasons as those stated by the district court in the written decisions explaining two of the orders from which plaintiff appeals. Manko v. Deutsche Bank, 554 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y.2008); Manko v. Deutsche Bank, No. 02 Civ. 10180, 2004 WL 574659 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2004). Moreover, it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to compel discovery. Accordingly, the orders of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.  