
    David T. HARGETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Ken Neal, James Harding, State of New York, Defendants, New York City Transit Authority, Stanley Grill, David Ross, May McIntosh, Consolidated-Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 09-4044-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 16, 2010.
    David T. Hargett, pro se, Danbury, CT.
    Robert K. Drinan (Gena Usenheimer, on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: REENARAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH and J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption to read as shown
    
    
      
       Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff David T. Hargett appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the New York City Transit Authority, Stanley Grill, David Ross, and May McIntosh (collectively, the “NYCTA defendants”), on his wrongful termination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and New York state law. We review a summary judgment award de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Havey v. Homebound Mortgage, Inc., 547 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2008). While we will not uphold an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for Hargett, he must point to more than a “scintilla” of supporting evidence to defeat summary judgment. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In applying these principles to this appeal, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision.

Upon independent review of the record, we conclude for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion that the NYCTA defendants were entitled to summary judgment. See Hargett v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 640 F.Supp.2d 450 (S.D.N.Y.2009). We have considered Hargett’s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the August 5, 2009 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  