DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Michael Cordaro (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant action on July 1, 2019, by docketing a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Dkt. 1 at 2). The MSPB had entered a decision on May 21, 2019, rejecting Plaintiff’s appeal of defendant the Department of Defense’s (“DOD” or “Defendant”) decision to remove him from his position as “Auditor, GS-12, Field Detachment, North Central Branch Office, Rochester, New York.” (Id. at 32). On August 16, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued an order concluding that this was a “mixed case” in which Plaintiff was both challenging the MSPB’s decision and asserting an affirmative claim of discrimination and that it accordingly lacked jurisdiction. (Id. at 254-55). In particular, the Federal Circuit noted that Plaintiff had raised the affirmative defense of gender discrimination before the MSPB. (Id. at 254). The Federal Circuit ordered that the action be transferred to this District, because “review of a…mixed case must be sought in federal district court.” (Id. at 255). Currently pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant. (Dkt. 47). Plaintiff has opposed Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 59) and has filed his own motions to compel, for court intervention, and for sanctions (Dkt. 62; Dkt. 64; Dkt. 67). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff’s various motions. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Before setting forth the factual background of this matter, the Court must resolve a threshold procedural issue. As required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)(1), Defendant submitted with its motion for summary judgment “a separate, short, and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.” L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(1). Pursuant to Local Rule 56(a)(2), Plaintiff was required to include with his opposition papers “a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party’s statement, in correspondingly numbered paragraphs and, if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(2). He did not do so. Instead, he included his own “Statement of Undisputed Facts and Issues” (Dkt. 59 at 3-21) (“Plaintiff’s Statement”), which sets forth his version of the relevant events but fails to directly respond to Defendants’ Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute (Dkt. 47-3) (“Defendant’s Statement”). Local Rule 56(a)(2) further provides that “[e]ach numbered paragraph in the moving party’s statement of material facts may be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion unless it is specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the opposing statement.” L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(2) (emphasis added). Although a district court should not deem unopposed facts to be admitted when those facts are unsupported by the record, Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2001), a district court has discretion to deem facts admitted for lack of compliance with its local rules, see N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc., 426 F.3d 640, 648-49 (2d Cir. 2005) (it was within district court’s discretion to deem the moving party’s statement of material facts admitted where the opposing party “offered mostly conclusory denials” and “failed to include any record citations” contrary to the district’s local rules); Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (because plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s statement of material facts submitted in accordance with local rules, “the material facts contained in his statement are deemed to be admitted as a matter of law”). Here, the Court has accepted as true the facts set forth in Defendant’s Statement to the extent they are (1) supported by the evidence of record and (2) not directly controverted by Plaintiff’s Statement and the exhibits submitted in support thereof. Where a fact is disputed, the Court has noted the same. Plaintiff is male and was born in July of 1984. (Dkt. 47-3 at 1). He is a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”) who obtained his bachelor’s degree in 2006 from St. John Fisher College and his master’s degree in 2007 from the Rochester Institute of Technology. (Id. at
1-2). Following his graduation from the Rochester Institute of Technology, Plaintiff was employed by the Internal Revenue Service as a Grade GS-9 Accountant in Washington, D.C. (Id. at 3). In August of 2011, Plaintiff took a position as a GS-0511 Auditor, Grade GS-9, Step 9, in the Rochester Office of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) North Central Branch Office (“NCBO”). (Id. at 4). DCAA is an agency of DOD that performs contract audit functions. (Id. at 9). DCAA maintains five regional offices and over 300 field audit offices. (Id. at 11). The NCBO is comprised of offices in three locations: Rochester, New York; Clifton, New Jersey; and Melbourne, Florida. (Id. at 12). In November of 2015, Plaintiff received an annual performance appraisal rating his overall performance as “Unacceptable.” (Id. at 31). The DCAA performance appraisal system in place at that time employed a five-tiered rating system, with ratings of “Outstanding,” “Exceeds Fully Successful,” “Fully Successful,” “Minimally Successful,” and “Unacceptable.” (Id. at
