Dracy McKneely, Appellant v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dracy McKneely, Appellant v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Appellee

No. 15-5317

Decided: May 05, 2016

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER 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). McKneely's sole argument on appeal is that the Drug Enforcement Agency cannot rely on FOIA Exemption 7(C) because there has been government misconduct, but he has not “produce[d] evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.” Nat'l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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