Unpublished Dispositionneil Abramson, Appellant, v. Lauro F. Cavazos, Secretary, Department of Education, 889 F.2d 291 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseBefore WALD, Chief Judge, and BUCKLEY and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and appellee's motion for summary affirmance, appellant's opposition thereto and appellant's brief on appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and is wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See Poindexter v. FBI, 737 F.2d 1173, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1984); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 29 (1987). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Order and Opinion filed February 27, 1989.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
