Opinion
No. 09-5249.
Filed On: December 9, 2009.
BEFORE: Garland, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion 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). Appellee has offered legitimate nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for the failure to promote appellant and for the denial of appellant's request for desk audits, work details, and a within-grade increase. Appellant has failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that those asserted non-discriminatory reasons were not the actual reasons, and that the appellee intentionally discriminated or retaliated against him. See Kersey v. WMATA, No. 08-7040 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2009); Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for discovery, because that request lacked the requisite specificity.See Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Finally, as the district court correctly observed, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not apply to actions against the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(c); Houri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 245 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64 (1987).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.