Court Opinion

ID: 8460878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 06:40:08.952264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:08.951740
License: Public Domain

*4
JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 24, 2008, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus, because appellant failed to identify any clear, non-discretionary duty appellees owed him. See 13th Regional Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 654 F.2d 758, 760 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“[MJandamus will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and plainly defined. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.”) (internal quotation 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.