Nagy v. Bromme

D.C. Circuit

Nagy v. Bromme

191 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5349

StatusPublished

This text of 191 F. App'x 1 (Nagy v. Bromme) 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

Nagy v. Bromme, 191 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

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 the appellant. It is

[2]*2ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 29, 2005, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there was no allegation of state action on the part of the appellees or conspiracy with state officials to violate his civil rights. See Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308, 314 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“a complete failure to allege facts that would support a finding of action under color of law ... affords valid grounds for dismissal of a section 1983 claim”); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 brief filed by the appellant. It is

[2]*2ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 29, 2005, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there was no allegation of state action on the part of the appellees or conspiracy with state officials to violate his civil rights. See Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308, 314 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“a complete failure to allege facts that would support a finding of action under color of law ... affords valid grounds for dismissal of a section 1983 claim”); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981).

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)

191 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagy-v-bromme-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack