# Brown v. McCarthy

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 18, 2010 · 368 F. App'x 145

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8478126

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Julius BROWN v. Brennan C. MCCARTHY, Associate County Attorney et seq
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 2010
- **Citations:** 368 F. App'x 145
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Henderson, Sentelle, Tatel
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8478126

## Opinion text

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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 4, 2009, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint 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), and appellant’s complaint, consisting largely of numerous forms and documents, states no discernible claim or basis for jurisdiction.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8478126. Public record. Not legal advice.