D'rayfield Kary-Khame Shipman, Appellant v. AMTRAK (2017)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance filed by appellees Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), the opposition thereto, and Amtrak's reply, it is

ORDERED that EEOC's motion for summary affirmance be dismissed as moot. Appellant did not designate the district court's December 23, 2014 order as a decision subject to appeal, and the court cannot “reasonably discern” from appellant's submissions that he wishes to appeal that decision. Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2006). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Amtrak's motion for summary affirmance be granted. Appellant failed to challenge the magistrate judge's findings related to his claims, and “objections to magistrate rulings are forfeited absent timely challenge in the district court.” Government of Rwanda v. Johnson, 409 F.3d 368, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for appointment of counsel. See Gaviria v. Reynolds, 476 F.3d 940, 943 (D.C. Cir. 2007). And, to the extent appellant challenges the district court's denial of leave to file a FOIA request or alleges that the court failed to accommodate his health issues during trial, the court declines to address these “asserted but unanalyzed” arguments. SEC v. Banner Fund Int'l, 211 F.3d 602, 613 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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