
    Thomas GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Paul Robeson High School for Business and Technology, Ira C. Weston, in his official capacity as Principal and individually, Barbara Gatti, in her official capacity as Assistant Principal and individually, Dr. Jacqueline Peek-Davis, in her official capacity as Superintendent and individually, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-4564-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2010.
    Thomas Garrett, New York, NY, pro se.
    
      Dona B. Morris, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
   Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, CHESTER J. STRAUB, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Garrett, pro se, brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Fourteenth Amendment; New York Civ. Serv. Law § 75-b (McKinney 1986); and for tortious interference with contract. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Reyes, M.J.) granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs claims in their entirety. Plaintiff appeals from that decision. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and asks whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 821 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, this Court is “required to 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) (quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the award of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  