USA, ex rel. Michael A. Bruzzone v. United States Attorney for the District of Columbia

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5170 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-00520-APM Filed On: September 26, 2025 United States of America, ex rel. Michael A. Bruzzone,

and Michael A. Bruzzone,

Appellant

v.

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,

Appellee

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

BEFORE: Walker, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement thereto filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 31, 2025, dismissal order and April 9, 2025, and April 18, 2025, minute orders denying appellant’s motion to reinstate the case and denying leave to file additional documents be affirmed. The district court did not err in concluding that appellant’s claims were patently frivolous and thus failed to raise a substantial federal question. See Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” (citation and internal marks omitted)); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (noting that dismissal of a federal claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is proper when the claim is so “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy”). Appellant raises no argument in his brief regarding the district court’s April 9 and April 18 minute orders and accordingly has forfeited any challenge to

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5170 September Term, 2025

those orders. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2