UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2504
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director of Central Intelligence Agency,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DAVID PETRAEUS, Director of Central Intelligence Agency,
Defendant.
-------------------------
AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION,
Amicus Supporting Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00639-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: September 30, 2014 Decided: October 16, 2014
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine L. Butler, Houston, Texas; John W. Griffin, Jr.,
Victoria, Texas; Victor M. Glasberg, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia; Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Marleigh
D. Dover, Sushma Soni, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Gregory G. Paul, MORGAN & PAUL,
PLLC, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Supporting Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Doe appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendant John Brennan, Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), in this civil action filed
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l
(2012), amended by Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
Pub. L. No. 113-128, §§ 401-488, 128 Stat. 1425, 1631-94 (2014).
John Doe alleged in his complaint that the CIA discriminated
against him based on a disability, i.e., Diabetes, Type 1, on
two instances: first, when it revoked its conditional offer of
employment, and second, when a CIA employee informed Doe in a
telephone conversation that he would not be able to reapply.
The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant finding
that Doe failed to timely exhaust his remedies as to his first
claim and, as to Doe’s second claim, he failed to establish that
he suffered an adverse employment action. On appeal, the
American Diabetes Association has filed an amicus curiae brief
in support of Doe, acknowledging that this case “primarily
concerns a procedural issue of administrative exhaustion, but
arguing that the CIA should not be permitted to avoid the
consequences of its failure to individually assess people with
diabetes because of procedural barriers.”
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment. D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of Sch.
3
Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is
appropriate only when “there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick
Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of
material fact exists, this Court “view[s] the facts and the
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.” Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th
Cir. 2011).
Upon our review, we conclude that there is no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Doe v. Brennan, No. 1:13–cv–00639–GBL-
JFA (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 4, 2013; entered Nov. 5, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4