Smith v. Smyth

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. Smyth

258 F. App'x 340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 2007

DocketNo. 07-5259

StatusPublished

This text of 258 F. App'x 340 (Smith v. Smyth) 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

Smith v. Smyth, 258 F. App'x 340 (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 bi’ief 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 orders filed June 18, 2007, and October 15, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly [341]*341baseless”). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the dismissal of the case. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 bi’ief 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 orders filed June 18, 2007, and October 15, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly [341]*341baseless”). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the dismissal of the case. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

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)

258 F. App'x 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smyth-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack