
    Ancy A. MATHIRAMPUZHA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-308-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 3, 2011.
    Ancy A. Mathirampuzha, pro se, West Hartford, CT, for Appellant.
    David Christopher Nelson, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Elizabeth A. Latif, on brief) for David B. Fine, United States Attorney, District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ancy Mathirampuzha, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Mathirampuzha’s appeal challenges only the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII claim, and thus all of her other claims — including any due process claim— are abandoned. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 n. 8 (2d Cir.2000) (“When a litigant — including a pro se litigant-raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, the issue is abandoned.”).

With respect to her Title VII claim, we review orders granting summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  