William B. DEVEER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-5026-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
September 22, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED,ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.

William B. Deveer, Federal Way, WA, pro se.

Kathryn J. Russo, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Melville, NY, For Appellee.


Page 782

Appellant William B. Deveer appeals from the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and 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 are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.”Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the award of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation.