PICAULT v. WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Henry Picault, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment entered February 9, 2018 in favor of his former employer, defendant-appellee World Business Lenders (“WBL”), dismissing his claims of discrimination and retaliation based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. By opinion and order entered February 7, 2018, the district court granted WBL's motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo and determines whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and “that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Penn v. New York Methodist Hosp., 884 F.3d 416, 423 (2d Cir. 2018).

Here, Picault's brief on appeal focuses entirely on restating his version of the facts without citing relevant case law or addressing any of the district court's rulings, as required under the federal rules. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a). While this Court “liberally construe[s] pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), pro se appellants must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which “requires appellants in their briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal,” Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Despite affording pro se litigants “some latitude in meeting the rules governing litigation,” this Court “normally will not[ ] decide issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief.” Id.; see also Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 632-33 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Although we accord filings from pro se litigants a high degree of solicitude, even a litigant representing himself is obliged to set out identifiable arguments in his principal brief.” (internal quotations marks omitted) ); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[W]e need not manufacture claims of error for an appellant proceeding pro se.”). Because Picault has failed to make any mention of the district court's summary judgment rulings, we conclude that he has abandoned such challenges.

Even assuming Picault did not abandon his claims, we conclude that Picault's appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its February 7, 2018 opinion and order.

We have considered Picault's remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.