Toomer v. Mattis

266 F.Supp.3d 184

Mirlin S. TOOMER, Plaintiff,

v.Jim MATTIS,¹ in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11–2216 (EGS)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 19, 2017

Donald M. Temple, Donald M. Temple, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy S. Simon, William Mark Nebeker, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge

This case is before the Court on plaintiff Mirlin Toomer's objections to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey's Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), issued on March 24, 2016. Magistrate Judge Harvey recommends that the Court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny Ms. Toomer's motion for partial summary judgment, her motion for spoliation sanctions, and her motion for a hearing on spoliation of evidence. Upon consideration of the R & R, Ms. Toomer's objections, defendant's response to those objections, the above-referenced motions, the responses and replies thereto, the relevant law, and the entire record, this Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Harvey's R & R, GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Ms. Toomer's motion for partial summary judgment, her motion for spoliation sanctions, and her motion for a hearing on spoliation of evidence.²

I. Background

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Civil Rule 7(h)

When a party moves for summary judgment, it must accompany its motion with a statement of material facts as to which it contends there is no genuine issue. LCvR 7(h)(1). That statement must reference the specific parts of the record relied on to support the assertions of fact in the statement. Id. In turn, the non-movant's opposition brief must be accompanied by a concise statement of genuine issues setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue. Id. That statement of genuine issues also must include specific references to the evidentiary record. Id. But if it "fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact ... the court may ... consider th[at] fact undisputed for purposes of the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). That is, a court "may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion." LCvR 7(h)(1).

Magistrate Judge Harvey determined that Ms. Toomer's statement of genuine issues filed in response to the statement of material facts that accompanied defendant's motion for summary judgment was "replete with legal argument, argument regarding the inferences to be drawn from the facts, and assertions of other facts which [Ms. Toomer] apparently believes ought to be considered in connection with the asserted fact." R & R, ECF No. 96 at 7 (citing Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts in Dispute ("Pl.'s Resp. SMF"), ECF No. 73 ¶¶ 7–8, 14, 16, 28, 31–33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48, 51, 55–56, 59–60, 62). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Harvey concluded that many of the assertions of fact in defendant's statement of material facts were not adequately controverted and, as a result, were undisputed. Id. at 4, 7. Thus, for purposes of his summary judgment analysis, he drew "from facts submitted by defendant which went undisputed or were inadequately disputed by [Ms. Toomer], the undisputed facts submitted by [Ms. Toomer] in connection with her motions, as well as the factual record submitted to the Court." Id. at 7. Where facts were properly disputed, he addressed those disputes as they arose in his analysis. Id. at 4.

Ms. Toomer objects to Magistrate Judge Harvey's characterization of the statement of genuine issues that she filed in response to defendant's statement of material facts. Obj. to Magistrate's R & R ("Pl.'s Objs."), ECF No. 99 at 5–10. This Court overrules that objection. The relevant rules make clear that, for purposes of summary judgment analysis, a court may deem undisputed assertions of fact in a movant's statement of material facts that are not properly "controverted." LCvR 7(h)(1) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).

An assertion of fact properly presented in a movant's statement of material facts is not "controverted" when a non-movant supplies additional facts and "factual context," see Pl.'s Objs., ECF No. 99 at 5, that do not actually dispute the movant's asserted fact. See Gibson v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol , No. 00-2424, 2002 WL 32713321, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2002) ("Plaintiff's Statement is almost completely unhelpful to the Court as its provisions rarely address the facts outlined in Defendant's Statement, instead describing in lengthy detail the ‘contextual and structural background’ surrounding Defendant's stated facts."); Learnard v. Inhabitants of the Town of Van Buren , 182 F.Supp.2d 115, 119–20 (D. Me. 2002) (disregarding a plaintiff's responsive factual statements in part because many of those statements "do not actually controvert the Defendants' facts that they purport to address"); cf. Graves v. District of Columbia , 777 F.Supp.2d 109, 111–12 (D.D.C. 2011) ("Where the opposing party has additional facts that are not directly relevant to its response, it must identify such facts in consecutively numbered paragraphs at the end of its responsive statement of facts."). This Court's review of defendant's statement of material facts and Ms. Toomer's statement filed in response reveals a consistent pattern of Ms. Toomer failing to controvert defendant's asserted facts and, instead, providing additional, non-responsive facts. Compare Def.'s Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ("Def.'s SMF"), ECF No. 68 ¶¶ 7–8, 14, 17, 19, 31–33, 36, 39, 43, 46–49, 51, 55–56, 60, 62, with Pl.'s Resp. SMF, ECF No. 73 ¶¶ 7–8, 14, 17, 19, 31–33, 36, 39, 43, 46–49, 51, 55–56, 60, 62. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Harvey did not err in his determination of disputed and undisputed facts for purposes of the summary judgment analysis. He properly deemed undisputed those facts which the parties explicitly stated were not in dispute and those facts which the parties failed to adequately controvert, and he appropriately filled in factual gaps by scrutinizing the record submitted to the Court. See R & R, ECF No. 96 at 7.

B. Relevant Facts

Having found no error in Magistrate Judge Harvey's determination of the undisputed facts for purposes of summary judgment analysis and overruling Ms. Toomer's objection otherwise, this Court fully adopts Magistrate Judge Harvey's thorough recitation of the facts in his R & R and incorporates that recitation by reference here. See id. at 7–21.

II. Standards of Review

A. Review of Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

"[A] district court may review only those issues that the parties have raised in their objections to the Magistrate Judge's report ...." Taylor v. District of Columbia , 205 F.Supp.3d 75, 79 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). When specific written objections have been filed with respect to a report and recommendation concerning a dispositive motion, the district court's review of the portions of the report and recommendation implicated by those objections is de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (3). But "[w]hen a party objects ... to a magistrate judge's determination with respect to a non-dispositive matter, the Court must modify or set aside all or part of the magistrate judge's order if it is ‘clearly erroneous' or ‘contrary to law.’ " Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp. , 42 F.Supp.3d 80, 86 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ).

B. Summary Judgment

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; Waterhouse v. District of Columbia , 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The moving party must identify "those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A material fact is one that is capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine dispute is one where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. Further, in the summary judgment analysis "[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. Analysis

In her complaint, Ms. Toomer asserts four distinct claims: (1) racially hostile work environment; (2) retaliation; (3) racial discrimination; and (4) age discrimination. Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 48–76. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of those claims, Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 68, and Ms. Toomer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the racially hostile work environment claim. Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. and for Spoliation Sanctions ("Pl.'s Mot."), ECF No. 70. Ms. Toomer also moved for spoliation sanctions, id. , and later filed a motion for a hearing on the earlier-filed motion for spoliation sanctions. Pl.'s Mot. for Expedited Hr'g on Spoliation of Evid. ("Pl.'s Mot. for Hr'g"), ECF No. 92. Magistrate Judge Harvey's R & R recommends that this Court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny Ms. Toomer's motion for partial summary judgment, her motion for spoliation sanctions, and her motion for...