United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5035 September Term, 2023 1:23-cv-03759-UNA Filed On: August 14, 2024 Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr.,

Appellant v.

Amanda L. Meredith, Judge, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, 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 brief 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 order entered February 7, 2024, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as duplicative of two cases previously filed by appellant and dismissed by the district court. See Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding that a complaint that “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” may be subject to dismissal); see also United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that arguments not raised on appeal are forfeited).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk