The 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 supplements thereto filed by the *447 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 filed March 17, 2009, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reopen appellant’s civil action on the ground that the court could not discern what claims were presented against which defendants and the basis for any claims. On January 4, 2008, 2008 WL 54152 , appellant’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 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 this rule, the 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). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets these requirements. See Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 671 .
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.