John Tuttle v. John McHugh, 457 F. App'x 234

Tuttle appeals district court’s summary judgment ruling on his ADEA retaliation claim.
District court treated appellee’s motion to dismiss as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
Tuttle had notice the motion could be construed as summary judgment but did not file a Rule 56(d) motion or seek discovery.
Record shows RESUMIX, not contested by Tuttle, was used to fill the supervisory position.
Evidence indicates alternative recruitment methods could not have filled the supervisory role, and no link shown between RESUMIX use and retaliation.
Court held no genuine disputes of material fact; RESUMIX usage was age-neutral and not tied to his earlier EEOC complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly treated the motion as summary judgment	Tuttle contends misclassification of motion as dismissal, affecting analysis.	Court may convert if outside-materials are considered and parties have notice.	No reversible error; Tuttle had notice but failed to seek discovery.
Whether summary judgment on retaliation under the ADEA was proper	Record contains evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact of retaliation.	No retaliation; RESUMIX usage not linked to first EEOC complaint and alternatives unavailable.	Affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact on retaliation.
Whether Tuttle established a prima facie case and/or pretext for retaliation	RESUMIX and lack of alternative methods show retaliatory motive.	No evidence linking RESUMIX to antagonism; no available non-RESUMIX methods shown.	No prima facie evidence of retaliation; no pretext shown; district court affirmed.

Labr v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006 (en banc)) (elements of ADEA retaliation prima facie case; requires causal connection)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (framework for pretext in discrimination cases)
Lettieri v. Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2007) (pretext analysis within McDonnell Douglas framework)
Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2004) (burden to show pretext in retaliation cases)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (pretext burden; ultimate persuasion lies with plaintiff)
Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1985) (summary judgment standards; scintilla evidence not enough)
Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 1998) (conversion of dismissal to summary judgment; notice requirement)
Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 1995) (failure to file Rule 56(d) may undermine discovery)
Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 1995) (discovery rights when motion treated as summary judgment)
United States v. Bergbauer, 602 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard for evaluating summary judgment in appellate review)