
    Teresa ZERILLI-EDELGLASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Mabstoa, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-701-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 15, 2011.
    Teresa Zerilli-Edelglass, pro se, Jackson, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Richard Schoolman (Kristen M. Nolan, on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROGER J. MINER, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff-appellant Teresa Zerilli-Edelglass appeals from a judgment entered February 2, 2010 in the district court granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees and dismissing her gender and disability discrimination claims and retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000&-1-17 (“Title VII”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-17 (“ADA”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and affirm only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97, 113 (2d Cir.2011). In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, we must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). “[Cjonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that appellees’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff-appellant’s appendix is GRANTED on the ground that documents that are not part of the record in the district court are not properly before this Court.  