Summary
granting summary judgment dismissing ADA claim where "defendant had no reason to know or even suspect that [the plaintiff] suffered an impairment that was so serious that it rose to the level of a disability within the meaning of the ADA, notwithstanding defendant's knowledge of plaintiff's injury. . . . The most defendant is chargeable with is knowledge that plaintiff suffered relatively mild injuries as a result of her fall with no suggestion of permanence"
Summary of this case from McCoy v. Morningside at HomeOpinion
No. 08-2055-cv.
November 5, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pitman, M.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
Naomi Watson, Princeton, NJ, pro se.
Ellen M. Martin and Mark G. Young, Patterson Belknap Webb Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: WALKER, GUIDO CALABRESI and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Naomi Watson, pro se, appeals from the March 28, 2008, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pitman, M.J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant-appellee. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues as to any 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, this Court is "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).
After having reviewed Watson's contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough decision. We have considered all of Watson's arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.