Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

District of Columbia

Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 24, 2011

DocketCivil Action No. 2010-0629

StatusPublished

This text of Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol (Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, (D.D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH TULL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 10-629 (RJL) ) OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF ) THE CAPITOL, ) ) STEPHEN AYERS, the Architect of the ) Capitol, in his personal capacity, ) ) REBECCA TISCIONE, a retired ) employee of the Architect of the ) Capitol, in her personal capacity, ) ) EVELYN GOODWIN, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in her ) personal capacity, ) ) TONDA CAVE, an employee of the ) Architect of the Capitol, in her personal ) capacity, ) ) EDGARD MARTINEZ, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in his ) personal capacity, ) ) and ) ) WILLIAM MILLER, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in his ) personal capacity, ) ) Dekndanh. )

ORDER F or the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is this

A~1ay of August, 2011, hereby ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#8] is GRANTED; it is

further

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH TULL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 10-629 (RJL) ) OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF ) THE CAPITOL, ) ) STEPHEN AYERS, the Architect of the ) Capitol, in his personal capacity, ) ) REBECCA TISCIONE, a retired ) employee of the Architect of the ) Capitol, in her personal capacity, ) ) EVELYN GOODWIN, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in her ) personal capacity, ) ) TONDA CAVE, an employee of the ) Architect of the Capitol, in her personal ) capacity, ) ) EDGARD MARTINEZ, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in his ) personal capacity, ) ) and ) ) WILLIAM MILLER, an employee of ) the Architect of the Capitol, in his ) personal capacity, ) ) Dekndanh. )

ORDER F or the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is this

A~1ay of August, 2011, hereby ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#8] is GRANTED; it is

further

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tull v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tull-v-office-of-the-architect-of-the-capitol-dcd-2011.