Adams v. Persons Unlawfully Holding the Offices of the Secretary of State

D.C. Circuit

Adams v. Persons Unlawfully Holding the Offices of the Secretary of State

173 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 05-5288

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F. App'x 1 (Adams v. Persons Unlawfully Holding the Offices of the Secretary of State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Persons Unlawfully Holding the Offices of the Secretary of State, 173 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 23, 2005 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint as a result of appellant’s failure to comply with the service requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (court of appeals reviews dismissal under Rule 4(m) for abuse of discretion).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 23, 2005 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint as a result of appellant’s failure to comply with the service requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). See Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (court of appeals reviews dismissal under Rule 4(m) for abuse of discretion).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-persons-unlawfully-holding-the-offices-of-the-secretary-of-state-cadc-2005.