Carpenter v. King

District of Columbia

Carpenter v. King

473 F. App'x 4

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 26, 2012

DocketNo. 11-7073

StatusPublished

This text of 473 F. App'x 4 (Carpenter v. King) 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

Carpenter v. King, 473 F. App'x 4 (D.D.C. 2012).

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. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED that the district court’s order filed June 17, 2011, 792 F.Supp.2d 29, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because the complaint failed to state any facts that sufficiently alleged defendants’ conduct in publishing the articles was negligent or malicious. See Vereen v. Clayborne, 623 A.2d 1190, 1194-95 (D.C.1993); Gertz v. Robert [5]*5Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

ORDERED that the district court’s order filed June 17, 2011, 792 F.Supp.2d 29, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because the complaint failed to state any facts that sufficiently alleged defendants’ conduct in publishing the articles was negligent or malicious. See Vereen v. Clayborne, 623 A.2d 1190, 1194-95 (D.C.1993); Gertz v. Robert [5]*5Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

473 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-king-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack