Apollo v. Di Toro

D.C. Circuit

Apollo v. Di Toro

696 F. App'x 523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 2017

DocketNo. 17-7049

StatusPublished

This text of 696 F. App'x 523 (Apollo v. Di Toro) 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

Apollo v. Di Toro, 696 F. App'x 523 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

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 and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). ^ ⅛

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 31, 2017, be affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion filed the same day. Notwithstanding appellant’s accusations, both the appellee and the district court judge, who dismissed the complaint on absolute immunity grounds, were acting in their respective judicial capacities. Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

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 and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). ^ ⅛

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 31, 2017, be affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion filed the same day. Notwithstanding appellant’s accusations, both the appellee and the district court judge, who dismissed the complaint on absolute immunity grounds, were acting in their respective judicial capacities. Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

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)

696 F. App'x 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apollo-v-di-toro-cadc-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack