the plaintiff has presented no evidence suggesting the necessary causal connection to support his retaliation claim, and the plaintiff’s additional evidence could not lead a reasonable factfinder to find the defendant’s non-retaliatory reason to be pretextual, the court grants summary judgment for the defendant on the retaliation claim. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 10th day of August, 2009. 1 . To the extent necessary, the court relies on the undisputed factual assertions in the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s statement of facts. See DeMartino v. FBI, 511 F.Supp.2d 146, 151 (D.D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also LCvR 7(h) (authorizing the court to
holding that the pjlaintiff does not contest and therefore concedes defendants facts in support of summary judgment holding that docket sheet which stated that plaintiff did not submit any evidence to contest elements of defendants motion for summary judgment when in fact plaintiff had timely filed two affidavits to contest motion could not be used to impeach judgment entered by trial court that stated that court had reviewed competent summary judgment evidence on file holding summary judgment was not warranted because material facts were in dispute holding that the facts as admitted through pleadings and documents placed before the court were sufficient to support a partys summary judgment motion holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees