Bush v. Howard University

D.C. Circuit

Bush v. Howard University

17 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 2001

DocketNo. 00-7262

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 F. App'x 1 (Bush v. Howard University) 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

Bush v. Howard University, 17 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

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 filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. Summary judgment in favor of appellee was appropriate as there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to appellant’s claims. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Bayer v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 956 F.2d 330, 333 (D.C.Cir.1992).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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 filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. Summary judgment in favor of appellee was appropriate as there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to appellant’s claims. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Bayer v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 956 F.2d 330, 333 (D.C.Cir.1992).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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)

17 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-howard-university-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack