Mays v. Pires

D.C. Circuit

Mays v. Pires

75 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 2003

DocketNo. 03-7003

StatusPublished

This text of 75 F. App'x 2 (Mays v. Pires) 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

Mays v. Pires, 75 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was on considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. 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 September 30, 2002, be affirmed. It is undisputed that although appellee initially misplaced the documents in question, appellee ultimately found the documents and timely submitted them to the appropriate office on behalf of appellant. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that appellant failed to show a legally cognizable injury. See McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C.Cir.1980).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 on considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. 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 September 30, 2002, be affirmed. It is undisputed that although appellee initially misplaced the documents in question, appellee ultimately found the documents and timely submitted them to the appropriate office on behalf of appellant. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that appellant failed to show a legally cognizable injury. See McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C.Cir.1980).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

75 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mays-v-pires-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack