Macht v. SkinnerMacht v. Skinner
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Wald, Harry T. Edwards, Silberman (per curiam)
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the two motions for summary affirmance filed by the federal appellees and the state appellees, appellants’ response, and the federal appellees’ reply thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motions be granted. Appellants have not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred or abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction which they sought. See, e.g., Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report, 760 F.2d 1300, 1306 (D.C.Cir.1985); White House Vigil for ERA Committee v. Watt, 717 F.2d 568, 571 (D.C.Cir.1983). Moreover, the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam).
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.