Bevevino v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUSH, Judge.
Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed pursu*463ant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The motions have been fully briefed, and oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion is denied and defendant’s cross-motion is granted.
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiffs in this action “are former and current employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution [ (FCI) ] at McKean, Pennsylvania.” Compl. ¶ 1.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Auto Logistics, Lp v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Miglionico v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012