HAZEL v. MUKASEY, 08-5025 (D.C. Cir. 10-16-2008)
Bobby E. Hazel, Appellant v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, etal., Appellees.
No. 08-5025.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: October 16, 2008.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Tatel and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Per Curiam
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See TaxpayersWatchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion to reopen his complaint, which had been dismissed nearly ten years earlier and from which dismissal appellant did not appeal.See, e.g., Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.v. Biovail Corp. Intern., 256 F.3d 799, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (denial of Rule 60 motion reviewed for abuse of discretion unless decision is rooted in error of law) (citation omitted). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to reopen.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.Page 1