No. 06-5388.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: April 16, 2007.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Brown and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance filed by appellee Alberto Gonzales, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion 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). Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is properly treated as having been filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because it was filed more than ten business days after entry of the order dismissing her complaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to file a second amended complaint, because the motion was not filed until after the case had been dismissed and was not coupled with a timely motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).See Confederate Mem’l Ass’n, Inc. v. Hines, 995 F.2d 295, 299 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that appellant show cause, within 30 days of the date of this order, why the district court’s order filed November 13, 2006, should not be summarily affirmed as to the remaining appellees. The response shall not exceed 20 pages. Failure to comply with this order shall result in dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38.
The Clerk is directed to send this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first class mail.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 resolution of the remainder of the appeal.