Court Opinion

ID: 8439312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 17:20:01.588237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:47.062299
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 filed by the 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 December 30, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint without prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of *8Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). To comply with the rule, a complaint should identify the “circumstances, occurrences, and events” that support the claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.