ORDER Appellant Terrance D. Fox, pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court granting Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing his hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Because Fox does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of hostile work environment claims, those claims are abandoned. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, it is abandoned); see also Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d
holding that defendant could not address merits of claim of error for first time in reply brief even though defendant cited to statute governing issue in initial brief claim of error deemed waived on appeal holding that defendant waived his blakely claim as issue on appeal by failing to raise it in his initial brief holding that a partys single conclusory sentence in his brief on appeal regarding a claim of error was tantamount to a waiver of that claim holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue