of Dorothy Egbert (“Malcolm Phelps[’s] check[ ] on this form was null because the within grade was not due yet.”). Moreover, even if Phelps was responsible for delaying Nurriddin’s WGI because of his annotation on the WGI form, the annotation was made for a legitimate reason: Nurriddin had in fact not been in the office “long enough in the past year to rate his performance as acceptable.” WGI Determination Form. Nurriddin does not dispute his absences or NASA’s calculations of them. Without more, the content of Phelps’ annotation is not sufficient to support a claim of retaliation. Nurriddin’s only remaining support for his retaliation claim is his speculation about the meaning of the note signed “asm,” which is insufficient to avoid summary judgment. See Brown, 199 F.3d at 458-59 (<HOLDING>); McGill, 203 F.3d at 846-47 (same).
holding that pure speculation  is insufficient to satisfy movants burden holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict