Opinion ID: 793092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court's Statement of Facts

Text: 25 Rodgers argues the district court completely failed to mention numerous facts that supported [Rodgers]'s claims, and [q]uite frankly, the entire tone of the court's recitation of facts sounds like it was written by defense counsel. After listing twenty-one ignored facts, Rodgers's entire argument supporting the inclusion of these facts is as follows: 26 These are not immaterial or tangentially relevant facts. These are facts which directly demonstrate the ongoing and serious nature of Defendants' FMLA violations and which prove Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff met her burden to raise these facts and provided ample support in the record for them. 27 The court's failure even to mention these facts speaks volumes about the court's failure to consider them. 28 We reject Rodgers's challenge to the district court's statement of facts for several reasons. First, Rodgers's challenge to the district court's factual findings is underdeveloped. Rodgers fails to direct us to specific record locations supporting her challenge. Without some guidance, we will not mine a summary judgment record searching for nuggets of factual disputes to gild a party's arguments. Cf. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Rodgers also fails to explain how these allegedly omitted facts establish a material question of fact, or how any of these various facts might prove the City or Chief Wakeham violated the FMLA. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial) (quotation and citation omitted). 29 Second, even if Rodgers did adequately develop her challenge to the district court's recitation of the facts, the district court did include several of the allegedly omitted facts in the court's recitation of the facts. Third, some of Rodgers's alleged facts are irrelevant, some inaccurately characterize the record, and some improperly advance legal conclusions. Finally, none of Rodgers's facts were material to the district court's stated bases for granting summary judgment. Rodgers failed to meet the requirement of Rule 56(e) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Accordingly, we find the district court accurately and sufficiently recited the evidence of record, did not omit material facts, and did not improperly weigh the evidence.