Floyd J. Stanek, Appellant, v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary, Dept. of Transportation, 948 F.2d 782 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto; the motion for summary reversal, the motion for leave to file opposition to motion for summary reversal and the opposition thereto; and the motion entitled introduction of new evidence, 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 claims merely duplicate those raised in Stanek v. Dole, C.A. No. 89-2765. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file opposition to motion for summary reversal and the motion entitled introduction of new evidence be dismissed as moot.

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.