McDermott v. Gonzales

215 F. App'x 1
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 2007
DocketNo. 06-5274
StatusPublished

This text of 215 F. App'x 1 (McDermott v. Gonzales) 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
McDermott v. Gonzales, 215 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 11, 2006, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant’s constitutional rights are not violated by the city of San Francisco in permitting the annual gay, lesbian, and bisexual parade, see Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995), and that his constitutional rights are not violated by the federal government’s decision not to investigate his complaint about the parade. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 833, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Heckler v. Chaney
470 U.S. 821 (Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermott-v-gonzales-cadc-2007.