
    Andréa STASKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Nassau Community College, John C. Ostling, Linda Susman, Ruth Goldfarb, Esther Bogin, Fran Gulinello, Jill Cohen, Jill Burgreen, Ann Muth, Sean A. Fanelli, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-3231-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 22, 2011.
    Andréa Staskowski, pro se, Valley Stream, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Julie A. Torrey, Ingerman Smith, LLP, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Paul A. Crotty, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

On December 22, 2005, plaintiff-appellant Andréa Staskowski (“plaintiff’), proceeding pro se on appeal, filed a complaint alleging that disciplinary action taken against her by defendants-appellees County of Nassau et al. (“defendants”) (1) infringed her federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,1985, and (2) breached her contractual rights under the collective bargaining agreement between Nassau Community College (“NCC”) and the Nassau Community College Federation of Teachers (“NCCFT”). On July 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

(i)

On January 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file exhibits with her reply brief. Plaintiffs motion is denied. To the extent her exhibits are part of the District Court record, they are already part of the record on appeal. To the extent that they are not part of the District Court record, she fails to allege any “extraordinary circumstances” warranting enlargement of the record. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1975).

(Ü)

We turn now to the merits of plaintiffs appeal. Plaintiff asserts that the District Court’s judgment “foreclos[ed][her] Constitutional guarantees to liberty and property rights.” We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff and drawing all inferences in plaintiffs favor. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir.2005). Here, all of plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law, and, in any event, she did not produce evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment. F or example, plaintiff argues that she represents a “class of one” that has been treated differently from other NCC professors, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the “class of one” theory of equal protection in the public employment context. See Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 598, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008).

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of plaintiffs claims on appeal and find them to be without merit. Plaintiffs motion to file exhibits with her reply brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  