Case ID: f-appx_296/html/0089-01.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

Eric E. MILLER, Appellant v. FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT, Appellee.
    No. 08-5070.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Oct. 2, 2008.
    Eric E. Miller, Fairfax, VA, pro se.
    BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and TATEL and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
   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 March 12, 2008, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s action without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004); see also Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8(a). See Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 669-70.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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