Court Opinion

ID: 8436913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 15:47:49.550051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:44.003732
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 and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 20, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), because the allegations lack an arguable basis in either 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.