Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05142/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Lee Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5142 September Term, 2024

1:22-cv-03007-TSC

Filed On: January 2, 2025

Arthur Lee Martin,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Childs, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion for

default judgment, and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for default judgment be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed

March 31, 2024, be affirmed. By raising only conclusory arguments on appeal,

appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his case for

failure to effect service. See Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173, 179 (D.C.

Cir. 2019) (“A party forfeits an argument by mentioning it only in the most skeletal way.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Per Curiam

USCA Case #24-5142 Document #2092155 Filed: 01/02/2025 Page 1 of 1