
    Renee HURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-1003-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 20, 2012.
    Renee Hurt, pro se, St. Albans, NY, for Appellant.
    
      Varuni Nelson, Margaret M. Kolbe, Kelly Horan Florio, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe is automatically substituted for former Postmaster General John Potter. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above.
    
    
      
       Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Renee Hurt, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We review an award of summary judgment de novo, mindful that “[sjummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In doing so here, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, record of prior proceedings, and issues on appeal.

Upon review, we conclude that Hurt’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See Memorandum & Order, Hurt v. Donahoe, No. 07-cv-4201 (ENV) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011), ECF No. 31. We add only that to the extent Hurt alleged improper denials of worker’s compensation, “it is settled law ... that [the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act] is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries sustained by federal employees.” Votteler v. United States, 904 F.2d 128, 129-30 (2d Cir.1990). The district court properly concluded that the Secretary of Labor’s determination under that statute is not subject to judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

We have considered all of Hurt’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.  