No. 07-7013.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: August 2, 2007.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal denied. 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). For the reasons stated by the district court, appellant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was properly dismissed, see Pitt v. District of Columbia, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1814970 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2007), and summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s age discrimination claim, see Barnette v.Chertoff, 453 F.3d 513, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and hostile work environment claim was properly granted. SeeVickers v. Powell, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1952369 (July 6, 2007) (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.
Page 1