Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0002-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tamitra DIXON, Appellant v. SMITH STATE PRISON, Appellee
    No. 17-7040
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: June 21, 2017
    Tamitra Dixon, Pro Se
    BEFORE: Griffith and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
   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 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 filed February 2, 2017, be affirmed. The court properly dismissed appellant’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are ’patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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