Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal reviewed the orders from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, specifically those dated November 15, 2007, and March 20, 2008. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions, determining that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the appellant's motion for discovery, referencing Stewart v. Evans, 351 F.3d 1239, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Additionally, the court found no error in granting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, citing Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1295-97 (D.C. Cir. 2002). This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36. The issuance of the mandate is postponed for seven days to allow for any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41(b) and D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion for Discoverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny the appellant's motion for discovery.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court’s decisions, determining that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the appellant's motion for discovery, referencing Stewart v. Evans, 351 F.3d 1239, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Granting of Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the district court's decision to grant the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, indicating that there was no error in this ruling.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court found no error in granting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, citing Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1295-97 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Issuance of Mandatesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The issuance of the mandate is delayed to allow time for any petitions for rehearing, following the federal and circuit procedural rules.
Reasoning: The issuance of the mandate is postponed for seven days to allow for any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41(b) and D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Non-Publication of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision will not be published in accordance with the procedural rules of the D.C. Circuit.
Reasoning: This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36.