From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brookens v. Solis

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 2009
No. 08-5527 (D.C. Cir. May. 8, 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-5527.

Filed On: May 8, 2009.

BEFORE: Garland, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that the appellee's proffered reasons for not promoting him were pretextual or that he was denied the promotions because of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) request for discovery, because any information pertaining to his qualifications under the delegated examining authority would have been irrelevant, and the remainder of the request lacked the requisite specificity. See Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("A party making a Rule 56(f) request must state concretely why additional discovery is needed to oppose a motion for summary judgment. We will not find an abuse of discretion where the requesting party has offered only a conclusory assertion without any supporting facts to justify the proposition that the discovery sought will produce the evidence required.") (internal quotations and citations omitted). The district court properly dismissed appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim with prejudice. See Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 245 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64 (1987) (stating that § 1981 does "not apply to actions against the United States").

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.


Summaries of

Brookens v. Solis

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 2009
No. 08-5527 (D.C. Cir. May. 8, 2009)
Case details for

Brookens v. Solis

Case Details

Full title:Benoit Otis Brookens, II, Appellant v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, U.S…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 8, 2009

Citations

No. 08-5527 (D.C. Cir. May. 8, 2009)

Citing Cases

Brookens v. Solis

On October 21, 2008, this Court granted summary judgment in that case, and this ruling was summarily…

Brookens v. Solis

However, that is clearly not the case. See, e.g., Brookens v. Solis, No. 08-5527, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10048,…