Paul H. Magalski v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security , 467 F. App'x 832 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-14885 APRIL 18, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00117-JRH-JEG
PAUL H. MAGALSKI,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lDefendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 18, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Paul H. Magalski appeals from an order of the district court granting
summary judgment in favor of his employer, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Magalski filed suit against DHS, arguing that an Administrative
Judge erred in finding that his demotion was supported by substantial evidence
and in concluding that his retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), failed as a matter of law. The district court
concluded that the misconduct charges upon which DHS based Magalski’s
demotion were, in fact, supported by substantial evidence, and that Magalski could
not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Magalski appeals these
determinations.1
After a de novo review of the record2 and the parties’ briefs, and with the
benefit of oral argument, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the
reasons set forth in its thorough order dated September 29, 2010.
1
Days before oral argument, Magalski asserted for the first time that he was not required
to have a reasonable belief that he was engaging in statutorily protected activity to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation. This argument is waived. Johnson v. United States, 340 F.3d
1219, 1228 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004).
2