Sidney Curtis Davis, Appellant, v. Walter Ridley, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992) June 25, 1992

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and HARRY T. EDWARDS and RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the court's order to show cause filed May 4, 1992, and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted, substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed June 8, 1990. Appellant concedes that the issues raised on appeal are controlled by Poole v. Kelly, 954 F.2d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and that, accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance must be granted.

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.