Bruce LYTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE, Defendant-Appellee, 518 F. App'x 49

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant Bruce Lytle appeals from the order of the District Court, dated March 30, 2012, adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, see Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, No. 08 Civ. 9503(DAB)(JLC), 2012 WL 393008 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2012) (“Report and Recommendation”), granting

summary judgment to defendant-appellee JP Morgan Chase on Lytle’s claims of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. See Lytle v. JP Morgan Chase, No. 08 Civ. 9503(DAB)(JLC), 2012 WL 1079964 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case. We review de novo the District Court’s

summary judgment, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dep’t, 709 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2013). Ly-tle, however, does not present any grounds for appealing the District Court’s

summary judgment. By not setting forth any arguments against the reasoning in the Report and Recommendation, which was adopted by the District Court, Lytle has waived all of his claims on appeal. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-98 (2d Cir.1995) (pro se appellant waives claims if basis for appeal is not stated in appellate briefs). Instead, Lytle makes unsubstantiated assertions of bias and misfeasance by the Magistrate Judge, court personnel, and JP Morgan Chase representatives. Lytle focuses in particular on a purported effort by Magistrate Judge Cott to excise portions of the record that, Lytle asserts, reveal Judge Cott’s bias in favor of granting

summary judgment. Having reviewed the record on appeal in light of Lytle’s various assertions, we conclude that all of Lytle’s claims on appeal are baseless. CONCLUSION We have reviewed all of Lytle’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. . Even assuming that Lytle had preserved his claims, however, we would affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.