
    Bernard SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Attorney General Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Department of Justice, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-3746-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 29, 2010.
    Bernard Singleton, Newport News, VA, pro se.
    Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, Daniel P. Filor and Sarah S. Normand, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is substituted for Michael B. Mukasey as Defendant in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Bernard Singleton, pro se, appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “con-clusory 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).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the district court judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion and order.

We have considered Singleton’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  