Court Opinion

ID: 8673504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:55:58.024032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:22.811870
License: Public Domain

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 fried by the 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 fried on March 25, 2008, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.