948 F. 2d 781 - Faherty v. P Utgoff

948 F2d 781 Faherty v. P Utgoff

948 F.2d 781

292 U.S.App.D.C. 189

Stephen J. FAHERTY, Sr., Appellant,
v.
Kathleen P. UTGOFF, et al.

No. 90-5396.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 24, 1991.

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is

2

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).

3

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.