court then granted the Department summary judgment, also on failure-to-exhaust grounds. Crawford v. Johnson, 166 F.Supp.3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2016). The district court reasoned that Crawford “did not specifically reference” those three instances “in the body of his formal EEO complaint,” id at 9, nor did he “reference or specifically incorporate those exhibits into the body of his EEO complaint,” id. at 10. The district court ruled that “information revealed only in exhibits attached to an EEO complaint” is not considered “incorporated into the final complaint” for purposes of the exhaustion requirement. Id. at 9. Crawford appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Department on those three claims.. II We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, ta 1st Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>); Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212, 217-218 (6th
holding plaintiff had exhausted claim because his attachment to his eeo complaint set forth sufficient factual details holding plaintiff had exhausted sex discrimination claim because inter alia she had identified an instance of disparate treatment in an attachment to her eeo complaint holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding plaintiff exhausted discrimination claim because he had raised it in an attached narrative holding plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies based on additional sheets attached to eeo complaint