
    Omar ABDELHADI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, New York City Department of Investigation, Rose Gill Hearn, Commissioner, New York City Department of Investigation, City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-3562-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 19, 2012.
    
      Ann Maeadangdang (Alan Serrins, of counsel), Serrins & Associates, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Ellen Ravitch (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Kathleen M. Comfrey, of counsel), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Omar Abdelhadi (“Abdelhadi”) appeals from the August 5, 2011 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees, New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”), DOC Commissioner Martin F. Horn, New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), DOI Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, and the City of New York (jointly, the “defendants”), and dismissing his national origin and religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-97, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., as well as his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, “drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). “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)).

Upon a review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Block in his Memorandum and Order dated August 3, 2011. We have considered all of Abdelhadi’s arguments on appeal and conclude that each of them is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  