did not appeal the adverse determination. Mr. Wilson argues that he went “above and beyond to exhaust all administrative options to resolve this out of court,” namely, complaining to several offices within DOT and requesting mediation with the Associate Administrator at the Departmental Office of Civil Rights. Opp’n at 3-4. However, these efforts did not exhaust Mr. Wilson’s administrative remedies as they were not an appeal of the initial FHWA determination pursuant to DOT’s FOIA regulations. The regulations require that FOIA appeals be filed with the DOT official responsible for processing appeals, in this case the Associate Administrator for Administration. See 49 C.F.R. § 7.21(c)-(d); see also Thorn v. United States, Civ. No. 04-1185, 2005 WL 3276285, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2005) (<HOLDING>). B. FOIA Request No. 2009-0157 As to FOIA
holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where plaintiff sent a letter to the attorney general grieving the initial agency determination instead of following the administrative appeal process specified by agency regulations holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim