Opinion
No. 06-5427.
Filed On: May 24, 2007.
BEFORE: Randolph, Garland, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant was not entitled to attorney's fees, see Tax Analysts v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992);Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1979), or in denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment,see Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.