(Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

(Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, District of Columbia

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2017

Docket16-7109

StatusPublished

This text of (Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, District of Columbia ((Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, 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

(Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, District of Columbia, (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7109 September Term, 2016 1:15-cv-01798-APM Filed On: May 19, 2017 Michelle D. Smith,

Appellant

v.

Mayor, District of Columbia, et al.,

Appellees

BEFORE: Griffith, Srinivasan, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The issues appellant presented in her district court complaint either were or could have been presented in the prior lawsuits she brought in the District of Columbia local courts. As a result, her claims were barred under longstanding preclusion doctrines. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).

Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule 36(c)(2)(F), this order will be published because it affirms a decision of the district court upon grounds different from those set forth in the district court’s published opinion. The Clerk is further 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/ Ken Meadows Deputy Clerk/LD

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7109 September Term, 2016 1:15-cv-01798-APM Filed On: May 19, 2017 Michelle D. Smith,

Appellant

v.

Mayor, District of Columbia, et al.,

Appellees

BEFORE: Griffith, Srinivasan, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The issues appellant presented in her district court complaint either were or could have been presented in the prior lawsuits she brought in the District of Columbia local courts. As a result, her claims were barred under longstanding preclusion doctrines. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).

Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule 36(c)(2)(F), this order will be published because it affirms a decision of the district court upon grounds different from those set forth in the district court’s published opinion. The Clerk is further 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/ Ken Meadows Deputy Clerk/LD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(Order) Michelle Smith v. Mayor, District of Columbia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/order-michelle-smith-v-mayor-district-of-columbia-cadc-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack