United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5142 September Term, 2024 1:22-cv-03007-TSC Filed On: January 2, 2025 Arthur Lee Martin, Appellant v. United States of America, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Katsas, Childs, and Garcia, 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). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion for default judgment, and the response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion for default judgment be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 31, 2024, be affirmed. By raising only conclusory arguments on appeal, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his case for failure to effect service. See Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173, 179 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“A party forfeits an argument by mentioning it only in the most skeletal way.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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