Nehemiah v. Director of the Office of Personnel Management

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ____________________ QUITO I. NEHEMIAH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:24-cv-00929-MLG-LF DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION United States Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing filed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on July 28, 2025. Doc. 62. This PFRD recommends the Court deny without prejudice three pending motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Quito I. Nehemiah. Id. at 1, 3. See also Docs. 14, 15, 22. The reasons underlying her recommendations relate to the procedural history of this case and also Nehemiah’s failure to comply with the relevant rules of civil procedure. Specifically, Judge Fashing noted that Nehemiah’s motions for summary judgment “were filed (1) before any formal petition was on file setting forth all claims for relief that Mr. Nehemiah wished to raise in this case, (2) before any administrative record concerning OPM’s employment ruling was on file, and (3) before any discovery into Mr. Nehemiah’s employment discrimination claims has occurred.” Doc. 62 at 3. She also pointed out that “because no formal factual record existed in this case when Mr. Nehemiah submitted his summary judgment motions, his filings failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A)’s requirement that a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record.” Id. (cleaned up). Judge Fashing recommends that Nehemiah’s motions be dismissed without prejudice and that he be permitted to refile his motions for summary judgment in the future. See id. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen days and that failure to do so waived appellate review.1 Id. at 4. Nehemiah filed two timely objections to the PFRD. Docs. 64, 66.2 Nehemiah challenges “paragraph 2 page 2” of the PFRD, arguing “these finding are clearly erroneous and unsupported by the evidence presented in this case.” Doc. 64 at 1; Doc. 66 at 1. He appears to object to Judge Fashing’s recitation of the procedural posture in this case. See Doc. 62 at 2 (explaining Judge Fashing’s decision to order Nehemiah to file a petition setting forth his claims after this litigation was transferred from the Federal Circuit). He also objects to “paragraph 3.Page 3” asserting that resolution of his motions for summary judgment would not be premature.

Doc. 64 at 2; Doc. 66 at 1. The Court disagrees. As Judge Fashing’s PFRD explains, “no formal factual record existed in this case when [he] filed his summary judgment motions [and] his motions failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A)[.]” Doc. 62 at 3.

Further complicating the matter is that Nehemiah’s objections do not address the substance of Judge Fashing’s decision. He does not challenge any of her factual findings regarding his motions3 or explain why, in light of those circumstances, she was wrong to deem his motions On August 18, 2025, Nehemiah filed a third objection. Doc. 67. That objection is untimely and will not be considered. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (explaining “the failure to make timely objection to the magistrate's findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”).

2 Both objections are materially the same. Compare Doc. 64 with Doc. 66. Accordingly, the Court treats Nehemiah’s second duplicative objection as incorporated within his first filed objection.

3 Nehemiah does challenge Judge Fashing’s “statement” explaining that “[a]fter an investigation into his conduct and briefing on the mat[t]er the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed the VA to terminate Mr. Nehemiah.” Doc. 64 at 3 (referencing Doc. 62 at 1). Nehemiah categorizes this “statement” as “libelous and slanderous.” Id. at 4. Nehemiah’s objection to this statement underscores the impropriety of a summary judgment decision at this stage of the premature. Nor does he explain why his motions should not be denied based on his failure to comply with the relevant rules of civil procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); D.N.M.LR-Civ. 56.1(b). In short, the Court finds no reason either in law or fact to depart from Judge Fashing’s proposed recommendations and findings and will adopt the conclusions memorialized in the PFRD. Doc. 62.

Based on the preceding, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and of the PFRD and considered the relevant objections.

It is therefore ordered as follows: 1. Nehemiah’s objections, Docs. 64, 66, are overruled; 2. Nehemiah’s objection, Doc. 67, which was lodged on August 18, 2025, is untimely and will not be considered; 3. Judge Fashing’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Doc. 62, is adopted; and A, Nehemiah’s motions for summary judgment, Docs. 14, 15, 22, are denied without prejudice.

7 jf ff ° Jt oute , L ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MATTHEW L. GARCIA litigation. The parties’ contentions are directly inapposite, and the factual record is presently insufficient to determine whether Nehemiah 1s entitled to judgment as a matter of law.