Holmes v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Holmes v. District of Columbia

180 F. App'x 174

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2006

DocketNo. 05-7071

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. App'x 174 (Holmes v. District of Columbia) 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

Holmes v. District of Columbia, 180 F. App'x 174 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record and on the briefs of counsel. See D.C.Cir. R. 34(j). The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(b). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal of the complaint is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion of March 30, 2005.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record and on the briefs of counsel. See D.C.Cir. R. 34(j). The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(b). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal of the complaint is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion of March 30, 2005.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. App'x 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-2006.