Court Opinion

ID: 9684550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:00:46.527559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:11.298988
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-5239                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:16-cv-01767-RBW
                                                      Filed On: August 24, 2023

Barry Ahuruonye,

              Appellant

       v.

Department of Interior,

              Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Walker, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia; the briefs filed by the parties; and appellant’s supplement,
errata, and notice. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon
consideration of the foregoing, and appellant’s motion to appoint counsel, it is

        ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases,
appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

        FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 31, 2022,
order granting summary judgment for appellee be affirmed. As to appellant’s claims of
discrimination and retaliation, appellee provided legitimate, non-discriminatory, and
non-retaliatory reasons for its employment actions, and the district court did not err in
concluding that appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
find that those reasons were pretextual. See Hernandez v. Pritzker, 741 F.3d 129, 133
(D.C. Cir. 2013); Brady v. Off. of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493–94 (D.C. Cir.
2008). To the extent that appellant argues that the district court’s judgment was void as
to his claim that appellee unlawfully denied him a pay increase in 2014, appellant
conflates an unrelated pay increase he received in 2013 with the one at issue in this
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-5239                                                September Term, 2022

case. Appellant has also not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief from the district
court’s judgment due to fraud. See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C.
Cir. 2006).

        In addition, to the extent appellant raises additional arguments in a supplement
to his brief, the court will not consider those arguments because appellant was already
denied leave to exceed the page limit for his brief, see Ahuruonye v. DOI, No. 22-5239,
unpublished order (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2022), and he has forfeited those arguments by
failing to sufficiently develop them in his opening brief, see, e.g., Al-Tamimi v. Adelson,
916 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

        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

                                          Page 2