
    Alexander ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-14174
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 26, 2011.
    William Robert Amlong, Jennifer Daley, Amlong & Amlong, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, James R. Wiley, Carlton Fields, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kristy M. Johnson, Carlton Fields, PA, Miami, FL, Mark T. Kobata, Barlow Kobata & Denis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKETT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alexander Zamora appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (‘Williams-Sonoma”), in his action alleging both discrimination and retaliation under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a); the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 12203(a); and state law. Zamora alleged that, during the course of his employment as an assistant store manager, WilliamsSonoma discriminated against him on the basis of his Cuban national origin and retaliated against him for opposing such discrimination. He also alleged that Williams-Sonoma discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, namely a chronic ankle condition, and retaliated against him for requesting accommodations for this condition. The district court granted Williams-Sonoma summary judgment on the ground that Zamora failed to make out a prima facie case for any of his claims. We have carefully reviewed the record, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we reach the same conclusion, finding no genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Williams-Sonoma.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . "This Court reviews de novo summary judgment rulings and draws all inferences and reviews all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir.2011) (citations omitted).
     