Charles Simon, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Charles Simon, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5031

Decided: June 10, 2016

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of appellant's “informal brief”; and appellees' motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the surreply, 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for disqualification. See United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Appellant has not alleged any basis for finding that the district judge had any personal bias against him, or that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

With respect to the dismissal of the complaint, appellant has not shown any error in the district court's determination that his claims challenging his inmate accident compensation award or the inmate compensation system are barred by the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See Capitol Hill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d 485, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34, 41 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Nor has appellant shown any error in the district court's determination that his claims are barred by the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

Finally, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court's disposition of the remaining motions by not addressing that ruling in his arguments on appeal. 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.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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