Hinds v. Bacanmore

398 F. App'x 604
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedOctober 15, 2010
DocketNo. 10-5157
StatusPublished

This text of 398 F. App'x 604 (Hinds v. Bacanmore) 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
Hinds v. Bacanmore, 398 F. App'x 604 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

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 dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice be affirmed. The district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Related

Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
398 F. App'x 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinds-v-bacanmore-cadc-2010.