Kim Crafton, Appellant v. District of Columbia and James Trainum, In His Official and Individual Capacity, Appellees
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
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). By failing to present any relevant arguments on appeal, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court's decision that she failed to state a cognizable claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). Appellant has identified no error in the district court's decision that her other claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and District of Columbia law are time-barred because they accrued in 1994 or 1995. See Earle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 299, 305 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Medhin v. Hailu, 26 A.3d 307, 310 (D.C. 2011); D.C. Code §§ 12-301(4), (8).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.