Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05085/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-5085 September Term, 2016

1:16-cv-00626-UNA

Filed On: September 12, 2016

Seidy M. Tiburcio,

Appellant

v.

Capitol of the United States, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and appellant’s brief. 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 April 1, 2016, be

affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for

failure to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d

672, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that a “complaint must give the defendants notice of

the claims and the grounds upon which they rest”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

USCA Case #16-5085 Document #1635123 Filed: 09/12/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-5085 September Term, 2016

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #16-5085 Document #1635123 Filed: 09/12/2016 Page 2 of 2