Opinion
No. 07-7133.
Filed On: February 5, 2008.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Brown and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
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. 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). Appellant has failed to show that appellee Howard University could be held liable for the conduct of appellant's co-worker at issue here. See Curry v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 F.3d 654, 661 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.