Hickman v. Intel Corp.

D.C. Circuit

Hickman v. Intel Corp.

433 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2011

DocketNo. 11-7013

StatusPublished

This text of 433 F. App'x 4 (Hickman v. Intel Corp.) 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

Hickman v. Intel Corp., 433 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

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 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 filed February 14, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 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 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 filed February 14, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 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)

433 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-intel-corp-cadc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack