Fountain v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Fountain v. United States

170 F. App'x 140

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5219

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F. App'x 140 (Fountain v. United States) 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

Fountain v. United States, 170 F. App'x 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[141]*141 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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 20, 2005, be affirmed. Appellant’s claims for money damages against the United States based on alleged violations of constitutional rights are barred by sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

[141]*141 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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 20, 2005, be affirmed. Appellant’s claims for money damages against the United States based on alleged violations of constitutional rights are barred by sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

170 F. App'x 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-united-states-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack