Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05124/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dabney L. Friedrich
Appellee
Michelle Grady
Appellee
Adaeze Nwosu
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5124 September Term, 2024

1:24-cv-00878-ACR

Filed On: January 3, 2025

Adaeze Nwosu,

Appellant

v.

Dabney L. Friedrich, Judge and Michelle

Grady,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Childs, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

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 on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

waive joint appendix, it is

ORDERED that the motion to waive joint appendix be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal of this

case be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims sua sponte

because “it is ‘patently obvious’ that [she] cannot possibly prevail based on the facts

alleged in the complaint.” Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 127 (D.C.

Cir. 2012) (quoting Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir.

1990) (per curiam)). Even accepting that appellant sued defendants in their personal

capacities, defendants possessed judicial immunity with respect to appellant’s damages

claims. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460–61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). 

And appellant forfeited any claims for equitable relief by not arguing for those claims on

USCA Case #24-5124 Document #2092403 Filed: 01/03/2025 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5124 September Term, 2024

appeal. See Spence v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 109 F.4th 531, 539 n.4

(D.C. Cir. 2024).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #24-5124 Document #2092403 Filed: 01/03/2025 Page 2 of 2