McGann v. Suter

D.C. Circuit

McGann v. Suter

219 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 2007

DocketNo. 06-5359

StatusPublished

This text of 219 F. App'x 9 (McGann v. Suter) 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

McGann v. Suter, 219 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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 briefs filed by the 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 October 10, 2006, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellees are protected by absolute immunity, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.Cir.1993); and that it lacks authority to compel appel-lees to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 briefs filed by the 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 October 10, 2006, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellees are protected by absolute immunity, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.Cir.1993); and that it lacks authority to compel appel-lees to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

219 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgann-v-suter-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack