United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-7066 September Term, 2024 1:22-cv-01453-TJK Filed On: November 12, 2024 Lokesh B. Vuyyuru, M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Henderson, Pillard, and Walker, 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 appendix 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 May 29, 2024 minute order be affirmed. The district court assumed that appellant was eligible for relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) because he did not receive notice from the Clerk of the district court, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d), regarding the district court’s September 2023 order dismissing the underlying case. The district court nonetheless concluded, as a matter of discretion, that relief was not warranted because appellant had actual notice of the September 2023 order but waited five months to file his Rule 4(a)(6) motion. Appellant has forfeited any challenge to this conclusion by not addressing it in his brief. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-7066 September Term, 2024

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Page 2