Opinion
No. 10-5044.
Filed On: August 10, 2010.
BEFORE: Rogers, Garland, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal and for remand, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal and remand be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary affirmance. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellants failed to address any of the arguments made by appellees in their motion for summary affirmance. See U.S. v. Reeves, 586 F.3d 20, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2009), citing Doe v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 875 n. 14 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (argument not raised on appeal is waived). Appellants also forfeited the arguments upon which they rely to summarily reverse and remand, because they did not first present those arguments to the district court. See Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Sebelius, 603 F.3d 57, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2010),citing Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936, 945 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (refusing to consider argument never made in district court).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.