Opinion
No. 08-5069.
Filed On: December 9, 2009.
BEFORE: Garland, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant's brief, the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the Rule 28(j) letters, 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 Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the appellees' motion for a protective order. Nor did the court err in granting the appellees' motion to dismiss, as appellant has already litigated or had the opportunity to litigate the claims presented here. See, e.g., Rogers v. United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 06-cv-1010, 2007 WL 1087475 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2007),aff'd, No. 07-5132, 2007 WL 2935533 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 2007) (per curiam); United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rogers, 283 Fed. Appx. 242 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rogers, 326 Fed. Appx. 718 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.