Jesse Jerome Dean, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, et al., Appellees
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the renewed opposition; 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). The district court correctly determined that the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) search for responsive records fulfilled its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). See 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq.; see also Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The DEA's failure “to turn up one specific document in its search does not alone render [its] search inadequate.” Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Further, the DEA's failure to contact former employees or employees of other agencies did not render the search inadequate. See Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 328-29 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. See GSS Group Ltd. v. Nat'l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 812 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.