
    Marva SAMUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Claudy Makelele, Defendants-Appellees, City of New York, Defendant.
    15-2843-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    August 29, 2016
    For Plaintiff-Appellant: Marva Samuel, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
    For Defendants-Appellees: Ingrid R. Gustafson, of Counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: John M. Walker, Jr., José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Jhdges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Marva Samuel, proceeding pro se, appeals from an August 11, 2015 order of the District Court granting Appel-lees’ motion to enforce the oral settlement of Samuel’s employment discrimination complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review the district court’s factual findings, including whether a settlement agreement exists and whether the parties assented to it, for clear error.” Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124,128 (2d Cir. 2007). “Consequently, a voluntary, clear, explicit, and unqualified stipulation of dismissal entered into by the parties in court and on the record is enforceable even if the agreement is never reduced to writing, signed, or filed.” Id. at 129 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the parties entered into a voluntary, clear, explicit, and unqualified settlement on the record in open court. The Magistrate Judge twice reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement with Samuel and confirmed that she understood and voluntarily consented to them. Samuel’s arguments on appeal that she did not understand the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically that she would be required to resign and that she was pressured into the agreement, are belied by the record. The Magistrate Judge confirmed that Samuel undei'stood that she would receive $10,000, that she would resign and her resignation would be “irrevocable,” and that the Appellees would “change what is marked on [her] file as a termination to a resignation.” The Magistrate Judge further confirmed that Samuel was entering into the agreement voluntarily and of her own free will. The District Court therefore correctly enforced the settlement agreement. See id. at 128 (“When a party makes a deliberate, strategic choice to settle, a court cannot relieve him of that ... choice simply because his assessment of the consequences was incorrect.”).

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Samuel on appeal and find them to be without merit. We thus AFFIRM the August 11, 2015 order of the District Court.  