Opinion
No. 10-5015.
Filed On: July 6, 2010.
BEFORE: Rogers, Tatel, and Griffith, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion for leave to file a sur-reply, the opposition thereto, and the lodged sur-reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a sur-reply be denied. Appellant has not demonstrated the filing of a sur-reply is warranted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. 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). Although appellant asserts he is challenging a denial of his request for access to the state court rather than the denial of his application for a visa, determining whether appellant is entitled to damages from appellees would ultimately require reviewing the decision to deny appellant a visa. That decision is clearly unreviewable, however. See Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.