Barksdale v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Barksdale v. United States

672 F. App'x 12

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 2016

DocketNo. 16-5212

StatusPublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 12 (Barksdale v. United States) 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

Barksdale v. United States, 672 F. App'x 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

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). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed June 15 and August 11, 2016 be affirmed. The court correctly held that district courts lack authority to review decisions of other district courts, and appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted concerning the matters discussed in his complaint. It is ■

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for “a separate Injunction order” and damages contained in appellant’s brief be denied. Appellant has not shown any grounds for an award of such relief by this court.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed June 15 and August 11, 2016 be affirmed. The court correctly held that district courts lack authority to review decisions of other district courts, and appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted concerning the matters discussed in his complaint. It is ■

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for “a separate Injunction order” and damages contained in appellant’s brief be denied. Appellant has not shown any grounds for an award of such relief by this court.

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)

672 F. App'x 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barksdale-v-united-states-cadc-2016.