Summary
dismissing claim “based entirely on the alleged impropriety” of a state court action, even though the claim was “not styled as an appeal from the ... action”
Summary of this case from Araya v. BaylyOpinion
No. 10-5314.
January 25, 2011.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:10-cv-01249-UNA.
Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.
R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
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 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order issued July 23, 2010, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellant's complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Ciralsky v. CIA. 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition wall not be published.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.