Henderson v. Gonzales

D.C. Circuit

Henderson v. Gonzales

198 F. App'x 5

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2006

DocketNos. 06-5150, 06-5152

StatusPublished

This text of 198 F. App'x 5 (Henderson v. Gonzales) 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

Henderson v. Gonzales, 198 F. App'x 5 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs 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 courts’ orders be affirmed. In his briefs, appellant challenges only the denial of his motions for leave to amend his complaints. The letter with which appellant sought to amend his complaints was already attached to the complaint filed in No. 06cv0859, however, and in neither case did the district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of [6]*6the 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.

These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs 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 courts’ orders be affirmed. In his briefs, appellant challenges only the denial of his motions for leave to amend his complaints. The letter with which appellant sought to amend his complaints was already attached to the complaint filed in No. 06cv0859, however, and in neither case did the district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of [6]*6the 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)

198 F. App'x 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-gonzales-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack