who fails to follow company rules and fails to appear for work without notification, even if the absences are attributable to a medical problem. Plaintiff has failed to provide any competent evidence that the stated reason for her dismissal was a pretext for any discriminatory action relating to any alleged disability. Although I must construe plaintiffs pro se pleadings liberally, and interpret them as raising the strongest arguments that they suggest, see Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir.1994), “proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve [plaintiff] from the usual requirements of summary judgment.” Fitzpatrick v. New York Cornell Hosp., 00 Civ. 8594, 2003 WL 102853,*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.9, 2003) (citing cases); see also Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F.Supp. 424, 429 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citing Carey v. Crescenzi, 923 F.2d 18, 21
holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se holding that unsupported contentions do not preclude summary judgment holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding that a pro se partys bald assertion completely unsupported by evidence is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment