Byrd v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District of Columbia

Byrd v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

701 F. App'x 1

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 22, 2017

DocketNo. 17-7084

StatusPublished

This text of 701 F. App'x 1 (Byrd v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byrd v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 701 F. App'x 1 (D.D.C. 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 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 order filed on January 31, 2017, be affirmed, but the order is hereby modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on January 31, 2017, be affirmed, but the order is hereby modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).

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)

701 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-washington-metropolitan-area-transit-authority-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack