UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2504

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director of Central Intelligence Agency,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DAVID PETRAEUS, Director of Central Intelligence Agency,

Defendant.

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

AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION,

Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-00639-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: September 30, 2014 Decided: October 16, 2014

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Katherine L. Butler, Houston, Texas; John W. Griffin, Jr., 

Victoria, Texas; Victor M. Glasberg, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, 

Virginia; Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Marleigh 

D. Dover, Sushma Soni, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Gregory G. Paul, MORGAN & PAUL, 

PLLC, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John Doe appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Defendant John Brennan, Director of the 

Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), in this civil action filed 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l 

(2012), amended by Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 

Pub. L. No. 113-128, §§ 401-488, 128 Stat. 1425, 1631-94 (2014). 

John Doe alleged in his complaint that the CIA discriminated

against him based on a disability, i.e., Diabetes, Type 1, on 

two instances: first, when it revoked its conditional offer of 

employment, and second, when a CIA employee informed Doe in a 

telephone conversation that he would not be able to reapply. 

The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant finding 

that Doe failed to timely exhaust his remedies as to his first 

claim and, as to Doe’s second claim, he failed to establish that 

he suffered an adverse employment action. On appeal, the 

American Diabetes Association has filed an amicus curiae brief 

in support of Doe, acknowledging that this case “primarily 

concerns a procedural issue of administrative exhaustion, but 

arguing that the CIA should not be permitted to avoid the 

consequences of its failure to individually assess people with 

diabetes because of procedural barriers.” 

We review de novo a district court’s order granting 

summary judgment. D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of Sch. 
4

Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is 

appropriate only when “there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick 

Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of 

material fact exists, this Court “view[s] the facts and the 

reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party.” Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th 

Cir. 2011).

Upon our review, we conclude that there is no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Doe v. Brennan, No. 1:13–cv–00639–GBLJFA (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 4, 2013; entered Nov. 5, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED