Shelden v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel

672 F. App'x 33
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided October 19, 2016·No. No. 16-5176·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 31, 2016 order be affirmed. Appellant’s complaint was properly dismissed because it was “patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Shelden v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel, 672 F. App'x 33 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

672 F. App'x 33 (Shelden v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shelden v. United States
Federal Circuit, 2018