Mike Webb v. Lloyd Austin, III
This text of Mike Webb v. Lloyd Austin, III (Mike Webb v. Lloyd Austin, III) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5084 September Term, 2023 1:22-cv-03827-UNA Filed On: January 3, 2024 Mike Webb, Major, doing business as Friends for Mike Webb, doing business as Major Mike Webb for Congress, doing business as Angels of Liberty, doing business as Major Mike Webb for VA,
Appellant
v.
Lloyd J. Austin, III, in official Capacity and United States Department of Defense, DOD,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
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 orders filed January 12, 2023, and April 12, 2023, be affirmed. The district court’s April 12 order appropriately dismissed appellant’s case without prejudice. Appellant does not dispute that he failed to comply with the January 12 order directing him to pay the filing fee or suffer dismissal. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Leave to file a claim in forma pauperis has always been a matter of grace, a privilege granted in the court’s discretion . . . .”). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5084 September Term, 2023
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk
Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mike Webb v. Lloyd Austin, III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mike-webb-v-lloyd-austin-iii-cadc-2024.