Opinion
No. 11-7038.
Filed: September 27, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court of Columbia, 1:99-cv-02556-RWR.
Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS, and TATEL, 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). On appeal, appellant's sole argument is that the district court erred in applying to her Title VII claims the 180-day limitations period found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Because appellant failed to raise this argument sufficiently in the district court, and argued instead that the 180-day limit applied to her claims, she has forfeited the argument. See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("It is well settled that issues and legal theories not asserted at the District Court level ordinarily will not be heard on appeal."); Flynn v. Comm'r, 269 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that, absent exceptional circumstances, arguments not made to the district court are forfeited); United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that a party's failure to pursue one of several available lines of argument would not present exceptional circumstances).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.