Earlene Lofton Burt, Appellant v. Ronald W. Roskens, et al, 950 F.2d 797 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 950 F.2d 797 (D.C. Cir. 1992) Dec. 6, 1991. Reconsideration En Banc Denied Jan. 28, 1992

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum of opinion filed May 30, 1990. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

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.