Satinder N. Gupta, Appellant, v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General, 957 F.2d 911 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore MIKVA, Chief Judge and RUTH B. GINSBURG and D.H. GINSBURG, 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 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed January 11, 1991. 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.
