Beard v. Homecomings Financial Network

D.C. Circuit

Beard v. Homecomings Financial Network

224 F. App'x 7

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2007

DocketNo. 06-7172

StatusPublished

This text of 224 F. App'x 7 (Beard v. Homecomings Financial Network) 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

Beard v. Homecomings Financial Network, 224 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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 briefs and appendix filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 20, 2006, be affirmed. Appellant does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his claims are barred by res judicata. Further, the district court correctly determined that appellant failed to establish that venue was proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a); Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 & n. 17 (D.C.Cir.1983). Transfer would not be in the interest of justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), because appellant’s pending action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division), No. 4:07-cv-91, involves an identical complaint.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 briefs and appendix filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 20, 2006, be affirmed. Appellant does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his claims are barred by res judicata. Further, the district court correctly determined that appellant failed to establish that venue was proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a); Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 & n. 17 (D.C.Cir.1983). Transfer would not be in the interest of justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), because appellant’s pending action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division), No. 4:07-cv-91, involves an identical complaint.

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)

224 F. App'x 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-homecomings-financial-network-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack