Opinion
No. 08-5091.
Filed On: August 27, 2008.
BEFORE: Henderson, Randolph, and Brown, 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). The district court properly dismissed appellant's discrimination claim as untimely. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92-93 (1990). Because appellant does not present any arguments contesting the dismissal of his retaliation claim, he has waived any opposition to summary affirmance on this claim.See Wood v. Dep't of Labor, 275 F.3d 107, 112 n. 9 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.