Thompson v. U.S. Capitol Police Board

D.C. Circuit

Thompson v. U.S. Capitol Police Board

22 F. App'x 14

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

DocketNo. 00-5456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 F. App'x 14 (Thompson v. U.S. Capitol Police Board) 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

Thompson v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 22 F. App'x 14 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

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 briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed October 26, 2000, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Appellant’s action was time-barred, and appellant failed to show the existence of a continuing violation which extended into the limitations period. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). Nor did appellant present facts meriting equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Dep’t Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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 briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed October 26, 2000, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Appellant’s action was time-barred, and appellant failed to show the existence of a continuing violation which extended into the limitations period. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). Nor did appellant present facts meriting equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Dep’t Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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)

22 F. App'x 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-us-capitol-police-board-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack