
    George OCKIMEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul W. Fowler, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Hempstead Department of Sanitation, Steven Pepe, Stanley Lombardo, Pete Mali-trano, Defendants-Appellees, Santo Sais, II, Charles R. Sellitto, Angelo Maffei, Defendants.
    No. 09-3264-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 27, 2011.
    George Ockimey, Uniondale, NY, pro se.
    John E. Ryan, Ryan, Brennan & Don-nelly LLP, Floral Park, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff George Ockimey appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Ocki-mey’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c, and N.Y. Executive Law § 296, and for breach of contract. We assume familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo, considering whether there was a genuine issue as to any material fact and, if not, whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). We “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). Although the burden rests on the movant to show that no genuine factual dispute exists, see Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999), a moving defendant is not required to file affidavits (or other materials) disproving the plaintiffs claims, see Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir.1994) (“[T]he moving party may obtain summary judgment by showing that little or no evidence may be found in support of the nonmoving party’s case.”); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment in favor of defendants was warranted for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion.

We have considered Ockimey’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  