Case Name: Mark A. JACKSON, Appellant v. J.E. WINGFIELD AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-06
Citations: 171 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 05-7146
Parties: Mark A. JACKSON, Appellant v. J.E. WINGFIELD AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellee.
Judges: Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 352–352

Head Matter:
Mark A. JACKSON, Appellant v. J.E. WINGFIELD AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellee.
No. 05-7146.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Feb. 6, 2006.
Mark A. Jackson, Landover, MD, pro se.
Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

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 filed by the appellant. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's judgment entered October 5, 2005, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined appellant's legal malpractice claim is barred by the District of Columbia's three-year statute of limitations. See D.C.Code § 12-301(8); Wagner v. Sellinger, 847 A.2d 1151, 1154 (D.C. 2004). On appeal, appellant has offered no argument that the suit is timely or any basis for tolling the limitations period.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.