Smith v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. United States

170 F. App'x 141

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5283

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F. App'x 141 (Smith v. United States) 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. United States, 170 F. App'x 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 30, 2005, be affirmed. The district court and this court lack jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court. See Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). To the extent appellant sought relief against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, a prerequisite to maintaining such a claim in district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Furthermore, the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims against the State of North Carolina and its employees, and Lexis Publishing Company and its employees based on the determination that the allegations against these defendants are frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 re[142]*142hearing 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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 30, 2005, be affirmed. The district court and this court lack jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court. See Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). To the extent appellant sought relief against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, a prerequisite to maintaining such a claim in district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Furthermore, the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims against the State of North Carolina and its employees, and Lexis Publishing Company and its employees based on the determination that the allegations against these defendants are frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

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 re[142]*142hearing 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)

170 F. App'x 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-united-states-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack