IN RE: Stephen Thomas Yelverton (2016)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion for remand, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for remand be denied. 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). Although the filing injunction relied on by the district court in this case does not apply to bankruptcy appeals, see U.S. ex rel. Yelverton v. Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 589 (D.C. Cir. 2016), this court nonetheless affirms the dismissal order on the ground that appellant's conversion and takings clause claims are not the proper subject of an appeal from the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), and modifies the judgment to specify that the case is dismissed with prejudice, see Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[W]e may affirm a judgment on any ground the record supports”). As this court noted in its March 15, 2016 order, “[t]he proper mechanism for bringing these claims is a separate civil complaint.” No. 15-7145, 3/15/15 Order (per curiam). This court reminds appellant that the district court's filing injunction requires him to file a motion for leave in district court before filing a new civil action in that court. See In re: Yelverton, 526 B.R. 429, 435 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2014), aff'd No. 15-7147 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 9, 2015) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Per Curiam