
    Edson MAITLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.
    16-324-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    November 21, 2016
    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Ed-son Maitland, pro se, Palm Coast, FL .
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Mitchell Boyarsky, Gibbons P.C., New York, N.Y.
    PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler, Barrington D. Parker, Circuit Judges.
   Appellant Edson Maitland, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Konica Minolta Business Solutions (“KMBS”), on his claims of discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.-, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; and New York state law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon such review, we conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment to KMBS. We therefore affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned January 25,2016 decision.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Maitland’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  