2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-20-2010 

# Hith am Abuhour an v

. U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1722

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hith am Abuhour an v

. U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 935. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/935NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1722

___________ HI T HAM ABUHOU RA N, A ppel l ant v . UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 02465) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y14, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y20, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antH i t ham A buhour an, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . Forthe r eas ons that f o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.T he fa ct s i n t hi s compl ai ntm i r r or ed one he had pr evi ous l yfi l ed pur s uantt o B i vens v. 1 S ix U n k n o w n N am ed A g en ts of F ed era l B u rea u o f N arc o ti cs, 40 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ), all eg ing that h is E igh th A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere v iolated b yE T S ex p o su re. A b u h o u ran ’s B i vens act i on w as fi l ed on M ar ch 24, 2006 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a. See A buhour an v. M orr i s on, C i v. N o. 06- 00560 ( D . D . C . ) T he compl ai ntw as t r ans ferr ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O h io , w h ich d ism iss e d h is c laim s a g a in st F C I-E lk to n a s tim e -b a rre d a n d f o r f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m undert he Ei ght h A m endment . See A buhour an v. M orr i s on, C i v. N o. 06- 0 1 2 0 7 ( N. D. Oh i o Au g . 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) . Ab u h o u r a n ’ s r e ma i n i n g Ei g h t h Ame n d me n tc l a i ms agai ns tFD C - Phi l adel phi a w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a w her e A b u h o u ra n a m e n d e d h is c o m p lain t to a d d o th e r c a u se s o f a c tio n w h ich re m a in p e n d in g in the D istri ct C o u rtat th is t im e. S ee C iv. N o . 0 7 -cv -05 5 1 3 (E . D . P a.). 2 A buhour an i s a fe der al i nm at e curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal C ent er( “FC I ”) i n For tD i x, N ew J er s ey . H e w as s ent ence d t o 188 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent i n A ugus t1997 and w as i ni t i al l ypl ace d atFC I - Fai r t on i n N ew J er s ey . H e w as then tr ans ferr ed t o var i ous di ffe r entfede r al pr i s ons : FC I - A l l enw ood i n Penns y l vani a i n J une 1 9 9 9 , F C I-E lk to n in O h io in A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , the F e d e ra l D e ten tio n C e n ter (“ F D C ” ) in P h ila d e lp h ia , P e n n s y lv a n ia , in J u ly 2 0 0 2 , a n d th e n b a c k to F C I- E lk to n in M a rc h 2 0 0 4 . O n O ctob er 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , A b u h o u ran fil ed a c o m p lai n t pu rsua n t t o the F ed era l T o rt C lai m s A ct, 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 4 6 (b), i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D i s tr i ctof O hi o, al l egi ng t hathe w as negl i gent l yexpos ed t o envi r onm ent al t obacc o s m oke ( “ET S”) w hi l e i ncar cer at ed atFD C - Phi l adel phi a and FC I - E l kt on. See A buhour an v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , Ci v . No . 0 6 - c v - 0 2 5 0 5 ( N. D. Oh i o ) . Th e Co u r td i s mi s s e d th e c l a i ms 1 agai ns tt he O hi o offi ci al s underr es j udi cat a bas ed on i t s deci s i on i n A buhour an v. M orr i s on, C i v. N o. 06- cv- 01207 ( N . D . O hi o A ug. 10, 2006) . W i t h one exc ept i on, theA ft ert he cl os e of di s covery , A buhour an s oughtl eave t o amend hi s compl ai ntt o add 2 thos e cl ai m s fr om hi s B i vens act i on t o t he pr es entact i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m ot i on, not i ng t hatdi s coveryhad al r eadycl os ed and thatA buhour an w oul d notbe p re ju d ice d b yth e d e n ial a s h e c o u ld still p u rsu e h is c laim s in th e p a ra llel p ro c e e d in g still p e n d in g in th e D istric t C o u rt. 3 C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c laim s a g a in st F D C -P h ilad e lp h ia b a se d o n A b u h o u ra n ’s f a ilu re to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e o n lyF T C A c laim A b u h o u ra n h a d p ro p e rlye x h a u ste d w a s th a t th e v e n til a tio n sy ste m a t F D C -P h ilad e lp h ia w as i nadequa t e t o pr ot ecthi m fr om s econdha nd s m oke. ( S. A . 30- 31. ) A buhour an fi l ed a not i ce of appea l w hi ch the Si xt h C i r cui tdi s m i s s ed s i nce the under l y i ng act i on w as noty et fi nal . See C . A . N o. 07- 3389 ( 6t h C i r . M ay3, 2007) . T he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o then tr a n s f e rr e d th is c a s e to th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . Fol l ow i ng t r ans fer , t he part i es conduct ed di s covery . I n February2008, the U ni t ed 2 St at es m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thati tw as undi s put ed thatthe vent i l at i on s y s t em atFD C - Phi l adel phi a w as adequa t e and, ther efor e, A buhour an coul d notpr evai l on h i s o n e r e ma i n i n g c l a i m. T h e Un i t e d S t a t e s a l s o ma i n t a i n e d th a tAb u h o u r a n ’ s o wn depos i t i on t es t i m onyconfi r m ed thathe neve rhad an a s t hm a att ack w hi l e i ncar cer at ed at FD C - Phi l adel phi a, t hathe di d notr eca l l evers eeki ng tr eatm ents peci fi cal l yfor r es pi r at orypr obl ems dur i ng t hatt i m e, and that , atthe t i m e of hi s depos i t i on, he s uffe r ed fr om no r es pi r at or yi l l nes s . ( S. A . 39- 40. ) A buhour an oppos ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on, a r g u i n g t h a tt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s h a d t a mp e r e d wi th h i s me d i c a l r e c o r d s f r o m F DCPhi l adel phi a and thatt heyhad fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thr ough fur t heraff i davi t s thattheR ule 56(f) of the F ederal R ules of C i vil P rocedu res provides: 3 If a p a rtyo p p o sin g th e m o tio n [ f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t] sh o w s b ya f f id a v it th a t, fo r sp e c if

ied re a so n s, it ca n n o t p re se n t f a c ts e ss e n tial to ju stif

yits o p p o s i t i o n , t h e c o u r tm a y: ( 1) denyt he mot i on; ( 2) or dera cont i nuance t o enabl e af fi davi t s t o be obt ai ned, depos i t i ons t o be t aken, orot herdi s coveryt o be undert aken; or (3) issue an yo ther just o rde r. 4 H V A C s y s te m w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly c a p a b le o f

o p e ra tin g w ith th e a d d itio n o f c ig a re tte s m o k e . A b u h o u ran also inv o k ed F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 6 (f), claim ing that su m m ary 3 ju d g m e n t w a s n o t ap p ro p ria te b e c a u se h e h a d b e e n u n a b le to tak e th e d e p o sitio n o f h is ow n expertw i t nes s oranyof the def ens e w i t nes s es due t o fi nanci al cons t r ai nt s and the f a c t th a t th e C o u rt h a d n o t g ra n te d a n yo f h is m o tio n s f

o r t h e a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. A r gui ng thatt her e r emai ned genui ne mat er i al i s s ues of fa ctas t o hi s m edi cal condi t i on and the tr eatm enthe s oughtdur i ng hi s i ncar cer at i on, A buhour an r enew ed hi s r eques tfor appoi nt m entof couns el and as ked thatthe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on be deni ed. In O ctob er 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, a s k in g it to a d d re s s w h e th e r A b u h o u ra n h a d p ro p e rl ye x h a u s te d h is c la im s . T he G overnm entt her eaf t erfi l ed a r enew ed mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , expl ai ni ng that w h il e c ertain c lai m s A b u h o u ran h as so u g h t t o raise in this an d o ther law su it s b ef o re the C our tar e unexha us t ed, t he FT C A cl ai m r egar di ng the ade quacyof the vent i l at i on s y s t em atFD C - Phi l adel phi a w as i n fac texhaus t ed. A buhour an aga i n oppos ed the m o tio n , ag a in in v o k in g R u le 5 6 (f ) a n d a rg u in g th a t h e h a d n o t y e t b e e n a b le to d e p o se h is5

o w n e x p e rt w itn e ss e s. H e sta ted : “th e p lain tiff ’s in a b ili tyto tak e d e p o sitio n s f ro m h is o w n e x p e rt w itn e ss e s a n d th e d e f e n d a n t’s o w n w itn e ss e s h a s b e c o m e c lea r a n d o b v io u s to thi s court . E xper tw i t nes s t es t i m onyw i l l be cr i t i cal t o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e, as w el l the depos i t i ons of var i ous ot herpar t i es t he pl ai nt i ff’ s m edi cal tr eatm entw ho have be en her et ofor e unava i l abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff due t o hi s i ncar cer at i on atFC I , For tD i x, N J . ” ( D kt . N o. #51, 12. ) H e s poke gene r al l yof “e xper tt es t i m ony ” butdi d noti dent i fyany a c tu a l e x p e r twi t n e s s e s h e wo u l d r e l yo n a ttr i a l n o rd i d h e p r o v i d e a f f i d a v i t s f r o m th e m. H e al s o ar gued thatt he af fi davi toffe r ed bythe G overnm entr egar di ng the vent i l at i on sy ste m a t F D C -P h ilad e lp h ia w a s in su f f icie n t as th e p e rso n w h o p re p a re d it w a s n o t a q u a lifie d e n v iro n m e n tal e n g in e e r o r m e c h a n ica l ar c h itec t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ee, concl udi ng th a t A b u h o u ra n h a d f

a iled to p re se n t eith e r m e d ica l ev id e n c e o r e x p e rt w itn e ss e s to e sta b lish a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h is e x p o su re to E T S a n d h is a lleg e d in ju ry , n o r d id h e p o in t to s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to d e m o n s tr a te a n a c tu a l in ju ry a t th e tim e o f

f ilin g . A ddi t i onal l y , t he C our tfound thatA buhour an pr ovi ded no evi dence thatthe vent i l at i on s y s t em atFD C - Phi l adel phi a w as i nadequa t e orthat , as a r es ul tof the i nadequa cy , he w as expos ed unr eas onabl yt o E T S. T he C our tal s o deni ed A buhour an’ s r enew ed r eques tfor the appoi nt m entof couns el . A buhour an then appe al ed. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent , vi ew i ng theI n addi t i on, A buhour an al s o addr es s es the ques t i on w e as ked the part i es t o br i ef on 4 appea l : “w hethert he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on s hi el ds the governm entfr om l i abi l i tyw i t h r es pectt o A buhour an’ s cl ai m of ET S expos ur e, orw hetherthe governm ent h a s w a iv e d im m u n ity b a s e d o n h o w F D C -P h ila d e lp h ia e n d o rs e d th e n o n -s m o k in g p o lic y . See U ni t ed St at es v. G aubert , 499 U . S. 315, 322- 24 ( 1991) ; M i t chel l v. U ni t ed St at es , 225 F. 3d 361, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . ” B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe r es ol ut i on of thi s ques t i on i s unnece s s aryt o ourr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent , w e do notaddr es s A buhour an’ s ar gum entatthe pr es entt i m e. 6 u n d e rly in g f

a c ts a n d a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s th e re f

ro m in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to A buhour an, t he non- m ovi ng par t y . See N or fol k S. R y . v. B as el l U SA I nc. , 512 F. 3d 86, 91 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yi f “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand . . . t he movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W e c a n a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt o n a n yb a sis s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. See B r ow n v. Pa. D ep’ tof H eal t h E m er gencyM ed. Ser vs . , 318 F. 3d 473, 475 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on forthe appoi nt m ent o f c o u n sel fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee T ab ron v . G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A buhour an r ai s es t he fol l ow i ng i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) the deni al of hi s m ot i ons for the a p p o intm en t of

co u n sel; (2) the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re to d en ythe G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdes pi t e hi s r eques t s underR ul e 56( f) ; and ( 3) the D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s a n a l ys i s o f

h i s a l l e g e d i n

j u ry. 4 A b u h o u ra n h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in deny i ng hi s r epea t ed r eques t s fort he appoi nt m entof couns el . W hi l e w e agr ee that A buhour an fa ced c ert ai n har ds hi ps i n pr os ecut i ng thi s l aw s ui tthatl i t i gant s w ho ar e not in c a rc e ra ted o r p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris m ig h t n o t, th e m e re f a c t th a t a litig a n t isA bu ho ur a n a l s o f a i l e d t o f i l e a n a ff i da vi t , a s r e qu i r e d b ythe Rul e . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 5 6 (f); D o w li n g v . C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, 8 5 5 F . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 -41 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). 7 i ndi gentori m pr i s oned does notent i t l e hi m t o t he appoi nt m entof couns el under28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(1). Se e T ab ron , 6 F . 3 d at 15 5 -56 (sett ing fo rth li st of fa ctors c o u rt s houl d cons i deri n deci di ng w hethert o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o appoi ntcouns el ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed A buhour an’ s m ot i ons forappoi nt m entof couns el w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o hi m r enew i ng t hem as the l i t i gat i on pr ogr es s ed. A buhour an ave r s thathe under s t ood this t o m ea n that co u n sel w o u ld b e a p p o inted in the fu ture. H o w ev er, th e D istri ct C o u rt m ade no s uch pr om i s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed A buhour an’ s m ot i ons pr i m ar i l yon t he basi s that hi s cl ai m l acked m eri t . In T abron, w e em ph asi zed that“t he d i stri ctcou rtm ust c o n s i d e ra s a t h r e s h o l d ma t t e rt h e me r i t s o f p l a i n t i f f ’ s c l a i m. ” S e e i d . a t1 5 5 . Be c a u s e we agr ee w i th t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatA buhour an’ s cl ai m di d, i n fac t , l ack mer i t , w e ca nnot concl ude thati t s deni al of A buhour an’ s r eques t s forthe appoi nt m entof couns el cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. N ex t, A b u h o u ran arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in g ran ti n g the G o v ern m en t’ s mo t i o n f o rs u mma r yj u d g me n twi t h o u te x p l i c i t l yru l i n g o n h i s r e q u e s tf o ra d d i t i o n a l t i me underR ul e 56( f) . W hi l e A buhour an di d r epea t edl yi nvoke R ul e 56( f) , he fa i l ed t o s et fo rth an ysp ec ifi c f

ac ts i n su p p o rto f h is “m o ti o n ” to ju sti fyd ef erral of the G o v ern m en t’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. A buhour an’ s pr i m aryr at i onal e w as thathe had noty et 5 conduct ed di s coverys uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s cl ai m s and coul d notdo s o unt i l couns el w as appoi nt ed. A buhour an i ni t i at ed the under l y i ng act i on i n O ct ober2006. I n D ece m ber8

2007, the C our tor der ed thatal l di s coverybe compl et ed byJ anuary2008. A buhour an o b jec ted to th e G o v e rn m e n t’s o rig in a l m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t in M a y2 0 0 8 a n d to i t s r enew ed s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on i n N ovember2008, ar gui ng thathe had noty et been a bl e t o compl et e di s coveryort ake a nydepos i t i ons . D ur i ng thi s t i m e, A buhour an di d noti dent i fyanyexpertw i t nes s es w ho w oul d t es t i fyaboutthe s hor t comi ngs of the v en ti lat ion sy stem , n o r did h e e v iden ce an inten t t o take h is ex p ert’s or an y o n e e lse’s d e p o s itio n . T h e f ac t th at A b u h o u ran d id n o t hav e c o u n sel o r w as u n ab le t o p ayan ex p ert w i tnes s cannotj us t i fyhi s i nact i on. E ven i f the C our thad gr ant ed hi s r eques tforthe appoi nt m entof couns el , A buhour an w oul d s t i l l have ha d t he bur den of i dent i fy i ng and hi r i ng an expe r ton hi s ow n. T he i n form a paupe r i s s t atut e, 28 U . S. C . § 1915, m akes no p ro v is io n f

o r l itig a tio n e x p e n s e s o th e r t h a n th e re p ro d u c tio n o f th e re c o rd a n d tr a n s c ri p ts . See 28 U . S. C . § 1915( c) ; s ee a l s o T abr on, 6 F. 3d at158- 59. T he r ecor d r efl ect s no s t eps on t he partof A buhour an pr i ort o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr yof j udgm entt o l ocat e or o b tain a f f id a v its f ro m a n ye x p e rt w itn e ss e s o r to c o n d u c t d e p o sitio n s, e ith e r o ra llyo r in w riting . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n in ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on the curr entr ecor d. See D ow l i ng v. C i t yof P h il ad elph ia, 8 5 5 F . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 -41 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (ho lding that, in li g h t of ap p ell an t’ s “ f a ilu re to p u rsu e a v a ilab le d isc o v e rya v e n u e s, a n d o f h e r f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith R u le 5 6 (f ), w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt a c ted w ith in th e p e rm iss ib le b o u n d s o f its9

d iscreti o n w h en itruled o n the C ity ’s su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n o n the re co rd b ef o re it ”). Fi nal l y , A buhour an ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng thathe fa i l ed t o demonstr at e ei t heractual i nj ur yora ca us al connec t i on betw een e xpos ur e t o E T S and h is a lleg e d in

ju ry . S e e M a rtin v . E v a n s, 7 1 1 A .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 1 (P a . 1 9 9 8 ) (e x p lain in g th a t, t o es t abl i s h a ca us e of a ct i on i n negl i gence , “pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e thatthe def endant ow ed a dutyof ca r e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, t he def endantbr eac hed thatduty , the br eac h r es ul t ed i n i nj uryt o t he pl ai nt i ff, and the pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed an a ctual l os s ordamage”) . Set t i ng as i de the part i es ’ fac tual di s put es r egar di ng A buhour an’ s m edi cal condi t i on, w hat tre a tm e n t h e so u g h t at F D C -P h ilad e lp h ia, a n d w h a t th e m e d ica l re c o rd s re f lec t, A buhour an has atno t i m e adduc ed anyevi dence t o s uppor thi s cl ai m thatthe vent i l at i on s y s t em atFD C - Phi l adel phi a w as i nadequa t e. B eca us e A buhour an, as the non- m ovi ng party , i s unabl e t o s how t he exi s t ence of an e l ementon w hi ch he w oul d bearthe bur den of p ro o f a t trial – h e re , tha t th e v e n til a tio n sy ste m w a s in a d e q u a te – “ su m m a ryju d g m e n t is pr operas s uch a f

ai l ur e ‘ nece s s ar i l yr ender s al l ot herfac t s i m m at er i al . ’ ” J aki m as v. H offmann- L a R oche, I nc. , 485 F. 3d 770, 777 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) ) . W hi l e A buhour an cr i t i ci zes the qual i fi cat i ons of Faci l i t i es M anage rT i m ot hyK avel ak, w ho pr ovi ded the G overnm ent ’ s aff i davi tr egar di ng the cl i m at e contr ol s y s t em used a tFD C - Phi l adel phi a, he has offe r ed no s ubs t ant i ve pr oof r egar di ng t he ef

fi cac yof thats y s t em hi m s el f. B eca us e he w oul d bearthe bur den of p rov ing this i n ad eq u ac yat tri al, this failure is fa tal to h is ne g li g en ce claim . W e the ref o re10

need notr eac h t he ques t i ons w hetherA buhour an has demonstr at ed an a ctual i nj uryort hat such an i njuryw as caused b yt he acti on s of t he U nit ed S t at es. B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

`