Kyer L. BEACHUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWISCO NEW YORK CORP., Defendant-Appellee, Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendant, 459 F. App'x 58

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Kyer L. Beachum appeals from a March 18, 2011 Memorandum and Order in which the district court, among other things, (1) granted

summary judgment in favor of AWISCO New York Corporation (“AWISCO”) on Beachum’s claims for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b); and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq.; (2) denied Beac-hum’s motion to amend the complaint; and (3) declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Beachum’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-109 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case and the issues on appeal. We review an award of

summary judgment de novo, see El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931, 933 (2d Cir. 2010), and we will affirm only where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s careful, comprehensive, and well-reasoned opinion. See Beachum v. AWISCO, 785 F.Supp.2d 84 (S.D.N.Y.2011). Briefly stated,

summary judgment was appropriate because, among other reasons, Beachum failed to adduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether AWISCO’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for terminating Beachum’s employment were pretextual. Id. at 97-98. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003).

Leave to amend is routinely denied where, inter alia, amending the complaint would be futile or where the non-moving party would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007). “[W]here the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that he would be able to amend his complaint in a manner which would survive dismissal, opportunity to replead is rightfully denied.” Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir.1999).

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion in denying Beachum’s motion to amend as futile. Beachum, 785 F.Supp.2d at 104-05. We have considered Beachum’s other arguments on appeal and find them to be wholly without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.