Opinion
No. 08-5528.
Filed On: April 28, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Brown and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, and the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. 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). It was proper for the district court to dismiss appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as the Supreme Court has held that the assignment and use of a social security number relating to an individual is permissible even in the face of a challenge that this practice violates religious beliefs.See Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 699-701 (1986). Moreover, contrary to appellant's assertions, participation in the social security system is mandatory; social security is not a voluntary contractual agreement. See United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 258-59 (1982). In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for reconsideration. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Derrington-Bey v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 39 F.3d 1224, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as amendment would have been futile.See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.