Manship v. Navy Department

D.C. Circuit

Manship v. Navy Department

296 F. App'x 91

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

DocketNo. 08-5016

StatusPublished

This text of 296 F. App'x 91 (Manship v. Navy Department) 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

Manship v. Navy Department, 296 F. App'x 91 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 12, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to challenge the district court’s holding that his claims are barred by the Feres doctrine. See Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); see also United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 684, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300-05, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); Bois v. Marsh, 801 F.2d 462, 469-71 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The [92]*92Clerk 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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 12, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to challenge the district court’s holding that his claims are barred by the Feres doctrine. See Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); see also United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 684, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300-05, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); Bois v. Marsh, 801 F.2d 462, 469-71 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The [92]*92Clerk 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)

296 F. App'x 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manship-v-navy-department-cadc-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack