Bagenstose v. the Govt. of the Dist. of Col.

Full title: Charles M. Bagenstose, Appellant v. The Government of the District of…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 5, 2008

No. 07-5293 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 5, 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-5293.

Filed On: February 5, 2008.

BEFORE: Sentelle, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance and the oppositions thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary affirmance.See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not err in granting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's motion to dismiss, see, e.g., Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam), or the District of Columbia's motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.