Stephens v. Wynne

D.C. Circuit

Stephens v. Wynne

204 F. App'x 25

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 2006

DocketNo. 06-5176

StatusPublished

This text of 204 F. App'x 25 (Stephens v. Wynne) 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

Stephens v. Wynne, 204 F. App'x 25 (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 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 order filed May 18, 2006 be affirmed. The district court correctly held that appellant’s present complaint concerning her 1992 termination is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in barring appellant from filing future complaints relating to her termination, after giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. See, e.g., In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 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 order filed May 18, 2006 be affirmed. The district court correctly held that appellant’s present complaint concerning her 1992 termination is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in barring appellant from filing future complaints relating to her termination, after giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. See, e.g., In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988).

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)

204 F. App'x 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-wynne-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack