Keith Dougherty, Appellant v. McKee, Chief, Administator, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Keith Dougherty, Appellant v. McKee, Chief, Administator, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5052

Decided: February 02, 2017

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, the supplements thereto, the oppositions, and the reply; the motions for summary affirmance, and the oppositions thereto; and the notices and letters filed by appellant, which include requests for transfer and for preliminary injunctive relief, it is

ORDERED that the requests for transfer and injunctive relief be denied. Appellant has not demonstrated any basis for the relief requested. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motions for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary affirmance. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly determined that appellant's claims for damages against the government and judicial officers were barred by sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment, see, e.g., FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants Snyder, Stevens & Lee, P.C., et al., Crane v. New York Zoological Soc'y, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990); and that appellant failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Any claims for injunctive relief were properly dismissed as well for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for reconsideration on the ground that he had offered no new facts nor pointed to a change in circumstances, including a change in the law, clear error, or injustice, to warrant reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Copied to clipboard