White v. Obama

D.C. Circuit

White v. Obama

561 F. App'x 16

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2014

DocketNo. 14-5043

StatusPublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 16 (White v. Obama) 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

White v. Obama, 561 F. App'x 16 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

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 and supplement filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed October 25, 2013, and January 29, 2014, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191-92 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 brief and supplement filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed October 25, 2013, and January 29, 2014, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191-92 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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)

561 F. App'x 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-obama-cadc-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack