Nzongola v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Nzongola v. District of Columbia

112 F. App'x 755

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 2004

DocketNo. 04-7049

StatusPublished

This text of 112 F. App'x 755 (Nzongola v. District of Columbia) 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

Nzongola v. District of Columbia, 112 F. App'x 755 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

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 appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 25, 2004, the only order as to which this appeal is timely, be affirmed. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the dismissal of appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Browder v. Director. Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), as any federal claims were patently insubstantial. See Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 25, 2004, the only order as to which this appeal is timely, be affirmed. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the dismissal of appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Browder v. Director. Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), as any federal claims were patently insubstantial. See Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

112 F. App'x 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nzongola-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack