Colbert v. McCartny

409 F. App'x 352
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 2011
DocketNo. 10-7123
StatusPublished

This text of 409 F. App'x 352 (Colbert v. McCartny) 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
Colbert v. McCartny, 409 F. App'x 352 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

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 the 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 issued September 24, 2010, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellant’s complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of [353]*353the 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

Related

Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 F. App'x 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colbert-v-mccartny-cadc-2011.