Xiangyuan Zhu, Appellant v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., Appellees.

No. 06-5388.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: August 14, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle and Brown, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam

ORDER
Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause filed April 16, 2007, and the response thereto, it is.

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is.

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the district court’s order filed November 13, 2006, be summarily affirmed as to the Kansas appellees. 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).

This court has already held that 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 court has also denied rehearing and rehearing en banc concerning the characterization of the motion for reconsideration. Because this court has already rejected appellant’s arguments concerning the characterization of the motion for reconsideration and appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion as to the Kansas appellees,see, e.g., Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7 (1978); Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we summarily affirm the district court’s order as to the Kansas appellees.

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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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