Case Name: Seidy M. TIBURCIO, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-15
Citations: 697 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: No. 17-5152
Parties: Seidy M. TIBURCIO, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees
Judges: BEFORE: Henderson and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 18–19

Head Matter:
Seidy M. TIBURCIO, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees
No. 17-5152
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: September 15, 2017
Seidy M. Tiburcio, Washington, DC, pro se.
R. Craig Lawrence, U.S.-Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
BEFORE: Henderson and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
Upon consideration of 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 of May 12, 2017, dis missing appellant's complaint, 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.