Ruston v. Vukelich

D.C. Circuit

Ruston v. Vukelich

249 F. App'x 831

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2007

DocketNo. 06-5355

StatusPublished

This text of 249 F. App'x 831 (Ruston v. Vukelich) 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

Ruston v. Vukelich, 249 F. App'x 831 (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 brief filed by appellant and the supplement thereto. 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 on October 13, 2006 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice, and appellant did not appeal the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion in which he sought leave to file an amended complaint.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 and the supplement thereto. 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 on October 13, 2006 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice, and appellant did not appeal the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion in which he sought leave to file an amended complaint.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

249 F. App'x 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruston-v-vukelich-cadc-2007.