Marguerite A. Jordan, Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.d., Secretary, U.S. Department Ofhealth and Human Services, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992)Annotate this Case
Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and HARRY T. EDWARDS and RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion filed July 2, 1991. Nothing before us indicates that the district court's fact determinations are clearly erroneous. 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 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.
BEFORE: Mikva, Chief judge; Edwards and Ruth B. Ginsburg, Circuit Judges
Sept. 17, 1992.
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied. None of appellant's arguments indicates that the district court's fact determinations were clearly erroneous. Appellant belatedly argues that Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, 1072-74 (1991), may apply to this case; because this argument, first made on petition for rehearing, is untimely, it will not be considered by the court. See Boileau v. Diamond, 659 F.2d 247, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (petition for rehearing denied "because it invites [the court] to reach beyond the issue that was raised on appeal"); Bullock v. Mumford, 509 F.2d 384, 388 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (grounds for reversal not previously placed before the court not considered on petition for rehearing).