holding, in the context of a pro se appeal, that issues not raised in an appellate brief are abandoned
How later courts described this case
- holding, in the context of a pro se appeal, that issues not raised in an appellate brief are abandoned
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
14-401-cv
Wooten-Francis v. NYC Department of Education/Board of Education
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of October, two thousand
fifteen.
PRESENT:
CHESTER J. STRAUB,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Anita V. Wooten‐Francis,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. 14‐401‐cv
NYC Department of Education/Board of
Education, et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
_____________________________________
1
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: Anita V. Wooten‐Francis, pro se,
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.
FOR DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES: Pamela Seider Dolgow, Drake A. Colley, of
counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, New
York, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Block, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Appellant Anita V. Wooten‐Francis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to the Appellees on her claims of
employment discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law
§§ 290‐301; and New York City Human Rights Law, New York City
Administrative Code §§ 8‐101 to 8‐703; and of violation of her right to due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
2
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the
view that “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows
that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321
F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). As an initial matter, because Wooten‐Francis does
not challenge on appeal any of the grounds on which the district court granted
the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, she has abandoned all relevant
issues. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding,
in the context of a pro se appeal, that issues not raised in an appellate brief are
abandoned). Even if Wooten‐Francis had preserved any issues for appeal,
however, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that
the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Appellees.
We have considered all of Wooten‐Francis’s arguments and find them to be
without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3