Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward Richardson, Appellant v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al., Appellees
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 as to appellees May, Sauls, Jones, Coble, Bakale, Dublin, and Pleasant. 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). Appellant does not contest the dismissal of his disability and common law tort claims against his co-workers, and has failed to show that the district court erred in construing his Amended Complaint to include constitutional, Privacy Act, whistleblower, and false testimony claims. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Appellant has forfeited arguments that his constitutional claims should have been tolled by failing to raise such arguments in district court, U.S. v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2003), and by failing to show in this court that there were any facts consistent with his complaint that could render his complaint timely, see U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Jarrell v. U.S. Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Additionally, the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1), does not provide a remedy against individual government employees, see Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Finally, the district court correctly determined that appellant's claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act were not fully exhausted, see Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and that any whistleblower claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j was untimely.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-5166
Decided: February 02, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)