Herbin v. Hoeffel

D.C. Circuit

Herbin v. Hoeffel

1 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

DocketNo. 00-7133

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F. App'x 2 (Herbin v. Hoeffel) 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

Herbin v. Hoeffel, 1 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

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. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 2, 2000, be affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants did not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). The district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 2, 2000, be affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants did not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). The district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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)

1 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbin-v-hoeffel-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack