966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992), 91-5172, Klassen v. Quinlan
|Citation:||966 F.2d 702|
|Party Name:||Ben KLASSEN, et al., Rudolph Stanko, Appellant, v. Michael QUINLAN, individually and in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons, et al.|
|Case Date:||May 21, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Unreported opinions cannot be cited or used in unrelated cases under D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) unless being used to stress its preclusive effect rather than its precedential value.
Before WALD, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of appellees' motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion filed April 30, 1991. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The court correctly ruled that venue...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP