Opinion
No. 10-5043.
Filed On: August 10, 2010.
BEFORE: Rogers, Garland, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion be denied with respect to appellant's claim that his unsatisfactory performance evaluation was retaliatory. The merits of the parties' positions regarding this claim are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be granted with respect to appellant's other claims, all but one of which he has forfeited by failing to raise on appeal, United States v. Taylor, 339 F.3d 973, 977 (D.C. Cir. 2003), or conceded in district court. With respect to the remaining claim, under the facts of this case, the proposed suspension and Letter of Admonishment did not constitute materially adverse actions for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim. Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1198-99 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 resolution of the remainder of the appeal.