
    Donovan HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and New York City Human Resources Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 08-4228-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 4, 2010.
    Donovan Howard, Reisterstown, MD, pro se.
    Cheryl Payer, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges and MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this action to conform to the caption in this summary order.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Donovan Howard, pro se, commenced this employment-discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that, because of his race and gender, he was subjected to a hostile work environment and wrongfully terminated. Following discovery, the district court conducted a jury trial that resulted in a verdict in favor of defendants. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Having reviewed plaintiffs submissions and conducted an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error in the proceedings below. First, the magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred for general pretrial purposes did not abuse his discretion when managing the discovery process and denying plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel, recusal, and sanctions. Second, we find no error in either (1) the district court’s denial of plaintiffs additional motions for appointment of counsel, partial summary judgment, and recusal; or (2) its evidentia-ry rulings and administration of the jury trial in this matter. With specific reference to plaintiffs complaint that the version of Exhibit B received in evidence at the trial differed from the photocopy he received during discovery, the district court carefully examined the disputed versions of Exhibit B and correctly found no substantial difference between the two. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff has challenged the merits of the jury’s verdict in his briefing, we find his contentions in that regard to be unsupported by the record and therefore unavailing.

In sum, we have considered each of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the August 4, 2008 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  