### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15767 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 54 -C V -J E C -1 E L D S O N J . M C G H E E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J I M N I C H O L S O N , S e c r e ta ry , U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f

V e te r a n s A f

f a ir s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 27, 2005) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E l dson M cG hee f

i l es thi s pro se appeal , chal l engi ng the grantof sum m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e D e p a r tm e n t o f

V e te r a n A f

f a ir s ( “V A ” ) , in th is e m pl oy m e ntr e t a l i a t i on s ui tbr oughtunde rT i t l e V I I , 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 16, a nd the R e habi l i t a t i on A c t , 29 U . S . C . § 794. M c G he e a l s o c l a i m e d avi ol a t i on of hi s r i ght t o p ro ced u ral d u e p ro cess. D i s c us s i on I . D ue P r oc e s s V i ol a t i ons In att ac ki ng the grantof sum m ary j ud gm ent , M cG hee argues thatse vera l w itn e s s e s w h o w e r e n o t d e p o s e d w o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d in f o rm a tio n c r itic a l to p r o v in g h is r e ta lia tio n c la im . W h ile h e h a s s u b m itte d n o e v id e n c e o ra f f id a v its to s uppor tthi s c ont e nt i on, he a s s e r t s tha the w oul d ha ve be e n abl e t o de ve l op the ne c e s s a ry e vi de nc e i f

he ha d be e n a l l ow e d f

ur the rdi s c ove ry . H ow e ve r , a f t e rthe p r e - tr ia l d is c o v e ry p e r io d e n d e d a n d th e V A f ile d am o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, M c G he e ne ve ra l l e ge d ane e d f orm or e di s c ove ry . A f

t e rthe m a gi s tr a t e i s s ue d a r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n th a t r e c o m m e n d e d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to th e V A , M cG h ee o b

j ect ed , st at i n g th atsu m m ary j u d g m en tsh o u l d b e d en i ed b ecau se di s c ove ry w a s i nc om pl e t e , a nd be c aus e he ha d m e thi s bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m af a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on. H ow e ve r , M c G he e ne ve rf i l e d a n a f f i da vi tpur s ua nt t o R ul e 56(f) or a m ot i on t o com pel di sc ov ery. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m aryMc Gh e eadditi on ally argue s th at hi s p ro c e dural dueproc e ss rightswerevio late d b e c a us e 1 theEE OCdid

no t add re ss t heissue s raise d in

hisc omp laint , a

nd likewi sedid

no t a ff ord him a full and completediscovery proce ss. We find no rever sible error in this reg ard.

3 ju d g m e n t to th e V A , a d o p tin g th e m a g is tr a te ’s r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n . W e f i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on. M c G he e ne ve rs oughta ddi t i ona l di s c ove ry , nordi d he dem on stra t e how the evi dence he sough tw ou l d h ave e st abl i shed hi s c as e. 1 I I . R e t a l i a t i on T o est abl i sh a pri m a f

ac i e c as e i n a T i t l e V II re t al i at i on cl ai m , an em pl oyee m ustshow that(1) he e ng aged i n st atut ori l y prot ec t ed express i on ; (2) he s uffe re d a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n ; a n d ( 3 ) th e a d v e r s e a c tio n w a s c au s a lly r e la te d to the prot ec t ed cond uct . W i dem an v. W al -M art , 14 1 F . 3d 14 53 , 14 54 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). T he adverse em pl oym entac t i on re qu i re m entm aybe sa t i sf i ed by an u l t i m at e em p l o ym en tact i o n , su ch as d i sch arg e o r fai l u re t o h i re, o r el se m u st

“ m e e ts om e thr e s hol d l e ve l of s ubs t a nt i a l i ty . ” S tr a vr opoul os v. F i r e s t one , 361 F . 3d 61 0, 61 6-61 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). M c G he e a s s e r t s tha tthe pr ot e c t e d c onduc ta ti s s ue w a s hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a c o - wo rk e r ’ s E E OC c l a i m a g a i n s tth e VA . He c l a i m s th a tth e r e a f t e rth e VA threa t ened t o i ss ue M cG hee al ett erof re pri m and. H e a ss ert s thatthi s propo se d le tte ro f r e p r im a n d c o n s titu te s a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n , w h ic h w a s c au s a lly c onne c t e d t o hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n hi s c o- w orke r ’ s E E O C c l a i m . T hi s l e tt e rof4

re pri m and, ho w ever , w as never i ss ued. N o adv er se em pl oym entac t i on occurs w h ere an em p l o yer rescind s a d eci si o n t o t ak e act i o n b efo re th e em p l o yee su ffers a t angi bl e harm . P enni ng t on v. C i ty of H un t svi l l e, 26 1 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 67 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). L i kew i se , “ [a ] threa t ened l ett ernever ac tual l y w ri tt en ca nn otconst i tut e a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. ” G upt av. F l a . B d. of R e ge nt s , 212 F . 3d 571, 588 n. 15 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T hus , M c G he e ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h hi s pr i m af a c i e c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on. AF F I RME D.