Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0033-01.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

Steve SHELDEN, Appellant Alzcog Therapeutics, LLC and Innoventureica, LLC, Appellees v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF COUNSEL, et al., Appellees
    No. 16-5176
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: October 19, 2016
    Steve Shelden, Pro Se.
    R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Appellees United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel, United States Department of Commerce, Office of Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Office of Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation, The National Institutes of Health, Judith W. Rogers, US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia), Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Cornelia T.L. Pillard.
    BEFORE: Brown and Griffith, Circuit Judges; 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 March 31, 2016 order be affirmed. Appellant’s complaint was properly dismissed because it was “patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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