Ehrman v. United States

District of Columbia

Ehrman v. United States

541 F. App'x 1

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 15, 2013

DocketNo. 12-5324

StatusPublished

This text of 541 F. App'x 1 (Ehrman v. United States) 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

Ehrman v. United States, 541 F. App'x 1 (D.D.C. 2013).

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 and supplement filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 26, 2012, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief in matters currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Cf. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995); Prentice v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 307 Fed.Appx. 460 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 and supplement filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 26, 2012, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief in matters currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Cf. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995); Prentice v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 307 Fed.Appx. 460 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

541 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrman-v-united-states-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack