Wilder v. Warshaw One, LLC

372 F. App'x 96
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 16, 2010·No. No. 10-7004·Published

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 the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued December 30, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the appellant’s complaint as frivolous. The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Wilder v. Warshaw One, LLC, 372 F. App'x 96 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

372 F. App'x 96 (Wilder v. Warshaw One, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)