
    Earl FORSYTHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
    
    No. 10-3230-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 23, 2011.
    Earl Forsythe, New York, NY, pro se.
    Julie Steiner, Senior Counsel, Appeals Division, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: CHESTER J. STRAUB, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to read as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Earl Forsythe appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendant New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) on his Title VII claim of employment discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We review an award of summary judgment de novo, applying the three-step analysis established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and “resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold such an award only if the record reveals no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In applying these standards, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

On an independent review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment was correctly entered in favor of defendant for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. We note only that Forsythe’s failure to adduce any evidence to support his conclusory allegation that a “ban-list” existed precluding African-Americans from working at certain DCAS sites reinforces the conclusion that his claim fails at the first step of McDonnell Douglas analysis. See Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.2000).

We have considered Forsythe’s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  