Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Gregory Michael Stone v. Defense Investigative Services

Gregory Michael Stone v. Def. Investigative Servs., 978 F.2d 744 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1992)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1992-09-23
Topic
litigation

978 F.2d 744 298 U.S.App.D.C. 247 NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. Gregory Michael STONE, Appellant, v. DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, et al. 92-5100. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gregory Michael Stone v. Defense Investigative Services. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion

978 F.2d 744

298 U.S.App.D.C. 247

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Gregory Michael STONE, Appellant,
v.
DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, et al.

92-5100.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sept. 23, 1992.

Before BUCKLEY, SENTELLE and KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of appellant's motion for expedition and the opposition thereto; appellee's motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto; and the motion for hearing of appeal on original record and the opposition thereto, it is

2

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reason stated by the district court in its Order filed February 24, 1992. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). It is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions be dismissed as moot.

4

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.