Morris J. Warren, Appellant, v. Douglas W. Stempson, Administrator, et al, 995 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel and the motion for summary affirmance and response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Except in defending against a criminal charge and on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, appointment of counsel is unwarranted when the movant has not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. See 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 memorandum order filed September 18, 1992. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant 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.