F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 8, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1330 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 03-00131 -CV -2-D F-5 RON AL D WAL LE R, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us JAM ES G. ROCHE, Secr etary , United States Air Force , De fendant-Appellee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(June 8, 200 5)

Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M:

Ro na ld W al le r ap pe al s pr o se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t in fav orof h is for m er em pl oyer, Secre ta ry

of t he Uni te d S ta te s Ai r Fo rce J am es G. Ro ch e, in thi s c as e al le gin g r et al ia tor y f ai lur e to r ei nst at e an d r ac e, a ge , and dis ab ili ty dis cr im inatio n un de r T itl e V II , 42 U . S. C. §§ 2 000e , e t se q. , the A ge D isc ri m inatio n inE m

plo y m en t A ct ( A D E A ), 29 U . S. C. §§ 6 21 e t se q. , and the A m er ic an s w ithD isa

bil iti es A ct

( A D A ), 42 U . S. C. §§ 1 2101 e t se q. N o r ev er sib le e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W aller is an A frican-Am erican veteran w ho was 52 y ears old when he f iled the instant com

plaint. W aller w orked at Robins Air Forc e Base as a civilian em plo y ee f ro m 198 0 un til 199 3. B etw ee n 19 90 and the tr an sf er of his pos iti on t o the Def ense Logistics Agency

(D LA ) in 1992, W aller f iled m any Equal Em ploym ent Opportunity(E EO ) com plaints allegin g (1) that the Air Force failed to a cc om m oda te his m ed ic al pr obl em s, and ( 2) that hi s tr an sf er to D L Aw as in re ta liatio n f

or f ili ng p re vio us c om

pla int s. W al le r’ s e m

plo ym en t w as te rm inate d in N ove m be r 1993 . H e as se rt ed

that the r ea son giv enf

or his te rm inatio n, that he

“ threatened to do bod ily

harm ,” wa s erroneous because he had not threatenedJudg e Duro ss F itzp atr ic k of the Un ite d State s Di str ic t Court fo r the Mid dle Di str ic t of Ge or g ia 1 presided ove r both Waller’s 1993 ac tion and the pre sent ac tion. 3 an y one . W al le r fi le d ac ivi l su it in f ed er al c ourt i n 19 93 a

bout his te rm inatio n, but the c ourt i n 19 95 g rante d sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dant. In200 0, W al le r m ad e thr ee uns uc ce ssf ul atte m pts to be r ei nst at ed

to em plo ym en t. W al le r dis co ve re d th at he w as e lig ibl e fo r non- co m pe tit ive re ins ta te m en t i n Augus t 20 00. W al le r be lie ve d th at non -c om pe tit ive r ei nst at em en t m eant tha t he did

not have to co m

pe te w ithoth er

appl ic an ts t o be r ei nst at ed and that he would be placed in any j ob for which he w as qualified. H e contends that th e AirFo rce r efu se d t o re in st at e h im in Octo be r 20 00 be cau se of h is pa st EEO ac tiv iti es : this a ct , he c la im s, f orm s th e ba sis of

the pr es en t c om

pla int . In granting Defe ndant’s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, the district court 1 de te rm ine d ( 1) that W al le r co nc ed ed he w as not

m ak ing a c la im of a ge discrim ination , ( 2) that W aller f ailed to m ake a prim a fa cie ca se of ra ce dis cr im inatio n, ( 3) that W al le r adm itt ed he did not have e vid en ce of

dis ab ili ty di sc riminat io n b as edon hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n, an d (4 ) th atW al le r fai le d t o s ho w a l i n kb e t w e e n h i s E E O a c t i v i t i e s an dh i s n o n - r e i n s t a t e me n tb e c au s e th e s a me pe opl e w er e not

inv olv ed .W e re

j ec t W al l er ’s cl ai m th at J u d ge Fi t z p at ri ck s h o u l d h av e re cu s ed h i m s el f b ec au s e t h e j u d ge 2 committed “p re

j u d i ci al err ors” in both the 1995 and 2004 judgments. Simply presidingover two case s with the same plaintiff a nd with overlapping fac ts -- and e nteringadver se judg ments in eac h case -- is no evidenc e of the s ort of pervasive bias that could have prejudice d Waller. See United S t at e s v . B a i l ey , 1 7 5 F. 3 d 9 6 6 , 9 6 8 (1 1 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( s t at i n g th atb i as s u ff i ci en tt o re cu s e aj u d ge must come from e x trajudicial sourc e, unless per vasive bias or prejudice exis ts that could pre judice a par ty). 4 O n a ppe al , W al le r, c iti ng F ed . R. Ci v. P. 52( b) , arg ue s th at w e shou ld ex am ine the a lle ge dly

e rr one ous fa ct

f ind ing s of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n hi s pr ev iou s ca se - - an d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n th is ca se - - by le av ing iss ue s of

f ac t i n di sput e: ( 1) w he the r the A ir F or ce f ra udul en tly altered his Form

SF- 50 Personnel Action Form , and (2) whether he w as term inated u n l aw fu l l y i n 1 9 9 3 . An dWal l erch al l en g es as erro n eo u s th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s determ ination that non-com petitive selection d oes not m ean that an em ploy ee au tom at ic al ly

w oul d be r eh ir ed . T o th e co ntr ar y , W al le r co nte nds that the ap pli ca ble A ir F or ce r eg ulatio n r equir ed that he be se le ct ed , a s an a ppl ic an t di sc riminat edag ai ns t. Walle r al so bri ng s up t he ev en ts rel at edto hi s 1 99 2 EEO fi lin gs and h is 1 993 te rm inatio n; h e sugg es ts tha t the se e ve nts sho wapr im a fa ci e ca se of r et al ia tio n and d isa

bil ity dis cr im inatio n. 2 W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ngs on a

m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo ; w e vie wa ll ev ide nc e an d f ac tua l i nf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty . Mi lle r v. K ing , 384 F . 3d 1 248, 125 8- 59 ( 11th5

Ci r. 200 4) . S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te “ if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, an sw er s to int er

ro ga tor ie s, and a dm iss ion s onf ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if an y , sho wthat the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng party is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d.R. Civ.P. 56(c). Fi rs t, W al le r doe s no t c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio ns a bout his fai lu re t o e st ab li sh race or a ge -b as eddi sc riminat io n: th es e is su es are ab an do ne d. See Gr eenbriar, Ltd. v. City of A labaster, 881 F.2d 1570 , 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1 9 8 9 ). An dWal l ero ff

er s n o s ub s t an t i v e a rg u m en tch al l en g i n g th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de te rm in at io n t ha t h e fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce o f a l in k b et ween hi s ea rli er EEO activities and his 2000 non-reinstatem ent. T his iss ue -- the basis of the district co urt’ s r ej ec tio n of

his r et al ia tio n c la im

- - al so i s a

bandon ed . S ee id. W e al so note that W aller a dm itted that he had no evidence of disability -based di sc riminat io n. W e re j ec t, on the ba sis of

r es j udi cata , W al le r’ s a tte m pts ( 1) to use Ru le 52( b) to ch al le nge the f

ind ing s of

f ac t m ad e by

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e pr ev iou s law sui t, and ( 2) to showdis ab ili ty dis cr im inatio n ba se d onhis tr an sf er to D L A or his term ination in 199 3. S ee A llen v. McC urry , 101 S. Ct. 411, 414 (198 0) (under re s j udi cata , af

ina l j udgm en t onthe m er its of an a ct ionpr ec lud es the part ie s f ro m re lit igatin g is sue s th at

w er e or c oul d have be enr ai se d inthat a ct ion ). A nd6

W aller’ s argum ents -- including his argum ents about th e applicable A ir Forc e regulation and th e incorrec t Form SF- 50 -- do not relate to whether he established a ca usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n hi s 19 92- 93 E E O a ct ivi tie s and h is 2 000 nonreinstatem ent. W aller has not shown that the failure to reinstate him wa s r e t a l i a t o ry. Insum , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dant o n a ll of

W al le r’ s c la im s. AFFIR MED.