Case Name: SEUNGJIN KIM, Appellant, v. APPLE, INC., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 582 F. App'x 3
Docket Number: No. 14-7101
Parties: SEUNGJIN KIM, Appellant, v. APPLE, INC., Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 3–4

Head Matter:
SEUNGJIN KIM, Appellant, v. APPLE, INC., Appellee.
No. 14-7101.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2014.
Seungjin Kim, Washington, DC, pro se.
BEFORE: TATEL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges; GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
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 and supplement filed by the appellant. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed July 7, 2014, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is " 'patently insubstantial,' presenting no federal question suitable for decision." Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)). As appellant has acknowledged in his brief, to the extent the complaint alleged a First Amendment violation, the district court correctly determined the claim did not apply to Apple, Inc., as a private entity.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.