Seitu v. District of Columbia

368 F. App'x 147
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 2010
DocketNo. 09-5289
StatusPublished

This text of 368 F. App'x 147 (Seitu 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
Seitu v. District of Columbia, 368 F. App'x 147 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

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. 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 July 31, 2009, be affirmed. Appellant challenges the actions or inaction of various Superior Court judges, who enjoy absolute immunity, see Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 682 (D.C.Cir. 2009), and whose decisions the district court lacks jurisdiction to review, see In re: Richardson, 83 F.3d 1513, 1515 (D.C.Cir.1996). To the extent appellant challenges the actions of others, his claims are similarly without merit.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 F. App'x 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seitu-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-2010.