
    Sandra WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIR SERV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    16-3454
    16-3454
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    December 5, 2017
    
      For Plaintiff-Appellant: Sandra Wilson, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
    For Defendant-Appellee: Craig R. Benson, Joseph E. Field, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY.
    PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Sandra Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to appellee Air Serv Corporation (“Air Serv”), Wilson’s former employer. Wilson sued Air Serv under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., asserting claims for wage discrimination, race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Wilson failed to respond to Air Serv’s motion for summary judgment. After an independent examination of the record, the district court granted Air Serv’s motion. This appeal follows. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and drawing] all inferences against the moving party.” Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “Even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 242 (2d Cir. 2004). “If the evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant’s burden of production, then summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” Id. at 244 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Air Serv and affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its well-reasoned and thorough September 9,2016 decision.

We have considered all of Wilson’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.  