Case Name: Khalid ELHASSAN, Appellant v. Porter GOSS, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Agent Travis Close; Agent Patrick Eager; Agent Wanda Mitchell; Agent "Eric"; John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, such names being ficticious
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-11
Citations: 522 F.3d 477
Docket Number: No. 07-1407
Parties: Khalid ELHASSAN, Appellant v. Porter GOSS, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Agent Travis Close; Agent Patrick Eager; Agent Wanda Mitchell; Agent “Eric”; John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, such names being ficticious.
Judges: Before SMITH, HARDIMAN, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 522
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
Khalid ELHASSAN, Appellant v. Porter GOSS, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Agent Travis Close; Agent Patrick Eager; Agent Wanda Mitchell; Agent “Eric”; John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, such names being ficticious.
No. 07-1407.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 8, 2008.
April 11, 2008.
Khalid A. Elhassan, Edison, NJ, pro se.
Susan Handler-Menahem, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Before SMITH, HARDIMAN, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT ORDER
D. BROOKS SMITH, Circuit Judge.
On January 30, 2007, in a comprehensive opinion, the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and against appellant on his claims of constitutional violations and his numerous tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This timely appeal came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted on April 8, 2008. On consideration thereof, and substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered on January 30, 2007, be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed against the appellant.
. Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a District Court's grant of a motion for summary judgment. Shuman ex rel Shertzer v. Penn Manor School District, 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir.2005).