Lucretia A. Robinson, Appellant, v. H. Lawrence Garrett, Iii, in His Official Capacity Assecretary of the Navy, et al, 966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992)Annotate this Case
Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply, 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). In light of the district court's entry of judgment in favor of appellees after a full trial on the merits, we do not reach Robinson's claim that the district court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. See Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1990); Locricchio v. Legal Services Corp., 833 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1987); Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co., 797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1072 (1987). With respect to the judgment on the merits, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its findings of fact and conclusions of law filed April 30, 1991. The court correctly applied the relevant law, and its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.
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.