No. 09-5181.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: September 15, 2009.
BEFORE: Tatel, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to hold in abeyance, styled as motion to seek a continuance, and the opposition thereto; and the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the surreply, it is
ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be denied. 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. SeeTaxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly concluded that claim and issue preclusion, as well as waiver, barred appellant from claiming that the post-settlement actions of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) violated the 2001 settlement agreement and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See, e.g., Rivet v. Regions Bank ofLouisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 476 (1998); Yamaha Corp. ofAm. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 253-54 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Horner, 846 F.2d 1521, 1523-24
n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, appellant has failed to establish that he may collaterally attack the jurisdiction of the tribunals that have already adjudicated his claim that the FAA violated the 2001 settlement agreement. SeeBlinder, Robinson Co. v. SEC, 837 F.2d 1099, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Page 2
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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