Summary
noting that plaintiff "has shown no proof of receipt by the [relevant agencies] of that FOIA request"
Summary of this case from Ning Ye v. HolderOpinion
No. 06-5281.
Filed On: March 6, 2007.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Rogers, and Garland, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, and the motion to remand, 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). With regard to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of March 8, 2005, appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Hidalgo v. F.B.I., 344 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (D.C. Cir. 2003). He has shown no proof of receipt by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of that FOIA request. Appellant does not challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment for appellee as to the remaining FOIA request and thus has waived any objections thereto. See Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1996). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to remand be denied.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.