NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2801
__________
JAMESON ROSADO,
Appellant
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-15-cv-03999)
District Judge: Honorable John M. Vazquez
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 5, 2021
Before: AMBRO, PORTER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 10, 2021)
___________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Jameson Rosado appeals from the District Court’s order entering summary
judgment in favor of the Attorney General of the United States. We will affirm.
I.
Rosado was employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1992 until his
termination in 2011. In 2015, he filed suit raising claims of discrimination and other
misconduct relating to his employment. Following a series of dismissals and amended
complaints, the District Court allowed three of Rosado’s claims to proceed to discovery.
In those claims, Rosado alleged that FBI personnel violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 by retaliating against him for filing a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in 2008. Rosado claimed that FBI personnel
retaliated against him for filing the complaint by: (1) not appointing him to the Evidence
Response Team in 2010; (2) not approving him for the Student Loan Repayment Program
in 2009 and 2010; and (3) referring him to the Investigation Division in 2011 for the
workplace misconduct that ultimately led to his termination.
Following discovery, the Attorney General filed a motion for summary judgment.
The District Court granted that motion, and Rosado now appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On appeal, Rosado challenges only
the District Court’s entry of summary judgment against him. Our review of that ruling is
plenary. See Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 533 (3d Cir. 2017). Having
2
conducted that review, we will affirm substantially for the reasons explained by the
District Court.
Rosado has not raised any persuasive challenges to the District Court’s ruling.
Rosado devotes much of his filings to complaints about a New Jersey criminal matter
involving voicemails that he left for a Magistrate Judge after the District Court’s entry of
summary judgment. That criminal matter is beyond the scope of this appeal. To the
extent that Rosado’s filings can be read to argue that this criminal matter reveals bias or
misconduct on the part of the Magistrate Judge, Rosado has shown no basis for any such
argument and our review reveals none.
Rosado’s arguments do not otherwise state any basis for relief. Rosado argues that
the Attorney General did not produce certain documents during discovery, but he does
not challenge any specific discovery ruling and largely fails to specify what he sought or
how he believes it would have helped his case. 1 In any event, we have reviewed his
arguments in this regard and discern no basis for relief. Rosado also argues that the
District Court overlooked certain issues, but he again largely fails to relate those issues to
1
Rosado claims, for example, that the Attorney General did not produce the names of
two Assistant Special Agents-in-Charge who allegedly told Mike Ward, the Special
Agent-in-Charge of the Newark Division, that Rosado previously impersonated an agent.
That information does not appear relevant to any of Rosado’s claims or to the District
Court’s reasons for entering summary judgment on those claims.
3
any of his specific claims or to any of the District Court’s reasons for rejecting those
claims. Those issues do not undermine the District Court’s rulings in any event. 2
In sum, neither Rosado’s arguments nor our review reveals anything calling the
District Court’s well-reasoned rulings into question.
III.
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Rosado’s
pending motions, including his motions to disqualify appellee’s counsel and for
appointment of counsel, are denied.
2
Rosado argues, for example, that the District Court overlooked a September 9, 2014
decision by an EEOC administrative judge who concluded that the FBI did not retaliate
against him. His arguments in that regard consist largely of handwritten notations such
as “not true” next to many of the administrative judge’s statements. Rosado does not
explain how this document undermines the District Court’s rulings, and it does not.
4