No. 11-7051.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed: September 27, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court of Columbia, 1:09-cv-01963-RCL-JMF.
Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response in opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
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). Contrary to appellant’s assertions, the court’s summary affirmance procedure, which is based on court precedent, seeid., does not run afoul of Fed.R.App.P. 47(a)(1) or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072. The district court correctly concluded that appellant is barred from relitigating in that court his probate claim, see generally Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 30 (1982); see also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity TrustCo., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006), or his challenge to the authority of the Florida probate judge, see generally Taylor v.Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008). In addition, the district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to present any objective basis for questioning the magistrate judge’s impartiality,see generally Rafferty v. NYNEX Corp., 60 F.3d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and there is nothing in the district court’s order to suggest that the district court failed to undertake a de novo review of the contested portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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