Medlock v. Rumsfeld

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Before filing a civil action in federal court until Title VII or the Rehabilitation Act, a federal employee is required to exhaust all available administrative remedies.
• where a defendant asserts “that the complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject matter [jurisdiction] can be based” under Rule 12(b)(1), “the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true”
• “To the extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he is not permitted to do so. Where a motion does not raise new arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its mind,’ relief is not authorized.”
• “To the extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he is not permitted to do so. Where a motion does not raise new arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its mind,’ relief is not authorized.”
• “To the extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he is not permitted to do so. Where a motion does not raise new arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its mind,’ relief is not authorized.”
• “While the specific facts in Harrods led the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s efforts had served the purpose of the Rule 56(f) affidavit, . . . it clearly did not eliminate the Rule 56(f) affidavit requirement discussed in Evans[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).