partial judgment for summary judgment in the matter and the basis of my appeal is that there were issues in dispute material fact issues that should have allowed the case prior job yes and what kit would came to find out after the fact or during the fact of the time lapse because there was a lot of time from the time that i filed the paperwork when they took their tangible action and the actual st hearing on march th i came to find out that james halloran one of the super violence involved with my terminations in the entire process that new jersey transit was now currently at well this is my view that is inaccurate only because the values on one that they presented are not the same on the other now as in and as an additional matter in my son reviewing his profile it appears that in both cases they were using the resume of anthony james barnett which is myself instead of anthony barnett jr which would be his that location and we all know that from pulling out the file that we had no it was on a server there's no way to copy it there server is an online closed in type deal where you live but attempts by trial underworld i put an application in my application i told them about what had happened to me  and it's like the activity that engaged in a month with respect my parents were and this application that they have introduced that amtrak to introduce doesn't have my application and maybe some other application but that's not the  application no that's not what i was saying what would you say what i'm saying is that it is partial there are values missing in other words where it says reason for leaving is a clear qualification is not that they have is not the full application that i said i submit yes adamant especially with the previous four and a four and a half to seven years of litigation ongoing clearly about constructivist charge that i would not include that information because this employer is certainly going to inquire has to inquire because it's a locomotive engineer says this is not just a job we're actually decide i work there they want they would want to know the reason she's saying that you don't know i don't know but you're saying i submitted an application and it might be an district court properly converted defendants motion to dismiss two motions for summary judgment nd plaintiff to waive any appeal on the main issue i e whether amtrak had knowledge of mr barnett in years protected activity with new jersey transit and three even if the court finds that the specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial just merely denying the allegations is not sufficient and i should say i put in a job application that provided some information some court whether he could print it out but he didn't provide any supporting evidence for his argument that this is what he submitted and in contrast we have what is going to be the only evidence at trial which is the person in the declarant in the i q department who's going to notice to provide whatever evidence and argument he had to dispute our position and he didn't provide anything other than that you know i know that what i wrote was different we were we were to keep what he provided that  not it's never going to happen because he's only going to say i didn't that's not the optician i submitted and then we're going to go to trial on the same information that we have before the court now which is the declarant saying there's no way you could have been altered so why continue with discovery in a case where we know the outcome is going to be the same moment requires a trial and summary judgment is what it is and if there is a credible leads you if there is a dispute based on reliable evidence on both sides and reliable evidence in this case admissible evidence is a sworn statement by the two points of here then it was trial and i mean you may not like it i mean i like it but that's that's our case law  and there is no you know recording there is no just devastating proof it's antrax earning you know the source system and this is the job application and the point of saying that's not our job made including that the plaintiffs waived any argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence because they didn't raise it in their pelligrini they really only contested whether or not it was proper for the judge to convert the motion to dismiss to want to summ they didn't raise the issue as on the main issue which is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to grant summary judgment they've only raised on this appeal whether or not the district court judge properly converted the motion to dismiss  is that what we've been talking about was not at all res so we drew this from the briefing but it was not raised by them in fact in the briefing yesterday said to thank you very much office in new jersey for the seven and a half years i have a record in my in my and my papers back here david asking for it now i'm just saying i certainly have i have a record of something on november th for a job that i applied to and clearly it says that i was his no it was it was another job application yes this is a copy of one that i was able to keep posting the answer as opposed to as i couldn't keep because you couldn't down you couldn't print it bottom it is an employee profile not the application now the values in there i knew there was a problem between exhibit a in exhibit b that defended presented to the court because one value had clearly show a referral is like a brother to me we've been best friends for about fifteen years michael in crawford is a locomotive engineer who used to work me at exxon mobil delivering gasoline he never had a locomotive engineer experience he currently works to he's the one who encouraged me to apply and i did say i said no because i believe i'm black wall behind the relationship that i was certainly we are between new jersey transit supervisory personnel air traffic to value personnel not knowing that in fact one of the new jersey transit former supervisor personnel is now an amtrak supervisor in that supervisor personnel who in fact with the student coordinator at the time of my application responsible for mewing the applications it is plausible to think that this person would we didn't had it have anything at the time thing i would have been able to graduate from here were to go into discovery how would i grab any information without discovery