Edward Richardson, Appellant v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Edward Richardson, Appellant v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5166

Decided: February 02, 2017

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted as to appellees May, Sauls, Jones, Coble, Bakale, Dublin, and Pleasant. 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). Appellant does not contest the dismissal of his disability and common law tort claims against his co-workers, and has failed to show that the district court erred in construing his Amended Complaint to include constitutional, Privacy Act, whistleblower, and false testimony claims. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Appellant has forfeited arguments that his constitutional claims should have been tolled by failing to raise such arguments in district court, U.S. v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2003), and by failing to show in this court that there were any facts consistent with his complaint that could render his complaint timely, see U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Jarrell v. U.S. Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Additionally, the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1), does not provide a remedy against individual government employees, see Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Finally, the district court correctly determined that appellant's claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act were not fully exhausted, see Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and that any whistleblower claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j was untimely.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard