
    Eileen VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REED ELSEVIER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-4471.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 8, 2010.
    Eileen Venable, Centreville, VA, pro se.
    Michael J. DiMattia (Philip A. Goldstein, on the brief), McGuireWoods LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Eileen Venable (“plaintiff’), an attorney appearing pro se, appeals a grant of summary judgment for defendant-appellee Reed Elsevier, Inc. (“defendant”) in an action alleging discrimination in employment and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See, e.g., Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 274 (2d Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2).

In its careful and well-reasoned order of March 6, 2009, Venable v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., No. 04-CV-3532 (BSJ), 2009 WL 585865 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.6, 2009), the District Court properly dismissed all of plaintiffs claims. We affirm the judgment disposing of all claims for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  