NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
2

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 
3

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.
4

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.