Juste v. US Post Office

D.C. Circuit

Juste v. US Post Office

626 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2015

DocketNo. 15-5209

StatusPublished

This text of 626 F. App'x 1 (Juste v. US Post Office) 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

Juste v. US Post Office, 626 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

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 appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to prosecute appellees, it is

ORDERED that the motion to prosecute be denied. Appellant has identified no legal basis for granting the requested relief. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 30, 2015, be affirmed. Appellant has identified no error in the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to prosecute appellees, it is

ORDERED that the motion to prosecute be denied. Appellant has identified no legal basis for granting the requested relief. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 30, 2015, be affirmed. Appellant has identified no error in the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)).

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)

626 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juste-v-us-post-office-cadc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack