Justin Rueb v. Secretary of Labor

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2024
• Docket: 23-5194
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5194 September Term, 2023 1:23-cv-01733-UNA Filed On: May 15, 2024 Justin J. Rueb,

Appellant

v.

Secretary of Labor and United States Department of Labor,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Rao, Walker, 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 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 July 17, 2023 order dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish that he has a clear right to an order directing appellee to investigate his allegations of unlawful wage garnishment, or that appellee has a clear duty to open an investigation. See Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 713-15 (D.C. Cir. 2023). An agency’s decision not to take an enforcement action is generally committed to its absolute discretion, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985), and appellant has not demonstrated that the language of 15 U.S.C. § 1676 creates a non-discretionary obligation on the part of appellee.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. 23-5194 September Term, 2023

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/ Scott H. Atchue Deputy Clerk

Page 2