
    Carole KITTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, Department of Homeless Services, Human Resource Administrative Services, City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2599-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 31, 2014.
    Carole Kittrell, Brooklyn, N.Y., pro se.
    Kristin M. Helmers, Michael J. Pastor, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, DENNY CHIN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Carole Kittrell, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, dismissing her age and race discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; and New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. In a May 31, 2013 order, the district court adopted Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann’s report and recommendation of March 14, 2013, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment dismissing the complaint was entered on May 31, 2013. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir.2011). Reliance upon conelusory statements or mere allegations, however, is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532-33 (2d Cir.1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her thorough March 14, 2013 report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Kitt-rell’s timely objection, in its May 31, 2013 order.

We have considered Kittrell’s arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  