United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-7124 September Term, 2022 1:18-cv-01690-APM Filed On: December 16, 2022 Joey D. Gonzalez Ramos,

Appellant

v.

ADR Vantage, Inc. and United States Department of Agriculture,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Katsas, Walker, and Childs, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 29, 2021, be affirmed. Appellant forfeited his invasion-of-privacy and intentional-infliction- of-emotional-distress claims by not pressing them in his opening brief. See Herron v. Fannie Mae, 861 F.3d 160, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Petit v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 675 F.3d 769, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2012). As to his remaining defamation and related conspiracy claims, appellant failed to commence his suit within the one-year statute of limitations. See Hourani v. Mirtchev, 796 F.3d 1, 17 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Nader v. Democratic Nat. Comm., 567 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Even assuming that the discovery rule applies, appellant “should have known” about his alleged cause of action in April 2017, when he undisputedly received an unredacted copy of the report from which his claims arise. Momenian v. Davidson, 878 F.3d 381, 388 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Jung v. Mundy, Holt & Mance, P.C., 372 F.3d 429, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2004)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-7124 September Term, 2022

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

Page 2