
    Monica G. PERSAUD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. VINCENT’S SERVICES, INC., Allison Nelson, Manager, Adebayo Iyanda, Director, Janice Ashton, Managing Director, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-1817-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 4, 2010.
    
      Monica G. Persaud, Greenpoint, NY, pro se.
    Sean Close, Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP; New York, NY, for Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Monica G. Persaud (“plaintiff’), pro se, brought this suit alleging various claims of employment discrimination against defendants-appellees St. Vincent’s Services, Allison Nelson, Ade-bayo Iyanda, and Janice Ashton (collectively, “defendants”). The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants with respect to each of plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff then brought this timely appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this action, and the issues raised on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. We 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 “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” See Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and have determined that they are meritless. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants for substantially the reasons set forth in the December 5, 2008 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (insofar as that Report and Recommendation was adopted by the District Court in its March 31, 2009 order).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the March 31, 2009 judgment is AFFIRMED.  