Opinion
No. 08-5082.
Filed On: February 3, 2009.
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the order to show cause filed October 2, 2008, and the response thereto; the motion for appointment of counsel; the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto (styled as "Dispositive Motions — Statement of Issues to be Raised"), and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal (styled as "Response to Order, Dispositive Motions and Motion to Dismiss") and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is
FURTHER 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 properly determined that appellant's discrimination claims were untimely because she filed her complaint more than 90 days after receiving the final agency decision. See Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The district court also properly determined appellant's Whistleblower Act claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, also know as claim preclusion. See Taylor v. Blakey, 490 F.3d 965, 969 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.