John M. Coles, Appellant, v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., Doing Business As Washingtoncity Paper; Bill Gifford, 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1996)Annotate this Case
Before: SILBERMAN, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion filed March 27, 1995. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant 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 41.