Stephen J. Faherty, Sr., Appellant, v. Kathleen P. Utgoff, et al, 948 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. 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 district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. See Krodel v. Young, 748 F.2d 701, 706 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 817 (1985); see also Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985).
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.