Unpublished Dispositionkenneth A. Reich, Appellant v. Constance Horner, et al, 897 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 897 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1990) March 13, 1990

Before RUTH B. GINSBURG, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.


This case was considered on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court's opinion and order filed March 24, 1989 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. The district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985). There was not enough evidence of Reich's handicap to reasonably notify the agency of its existence. See Fong v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 705 F. Supp. 41, 47 (D.D.C. 1989), aff'd, No. 89-5090 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 1989) (unpublished order granting summary affirmance).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after any 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.