U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2008

Wada v. Tomlinson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 15, 2008

296 F. App'x 77

Counsel

Hadiza I. Wada, Bowie, MD, pro se., R. Craig Lawrence, Rhonda C. Fields, Michael Joseph Ryan, Jeffrey Allen Taylor, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Tarquinii v. Harker (District Court, District of Columbia 2024)
Payne v. Kempthorne (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Yaich v. Scalia (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
Prescott-Harris v. McHugh (District Court, District of Columbia 2016)
Slate v. Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2014)
Pintro v. Genachowski (District Court, District of Columbia 2014)
Coleman v. Napolitano (District Court, District of Columbia 2014)
Dudley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (District Court, District of Columbia 2013)
Hampton v. Vilsack (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Hutchinson v. Holder (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Perry v. Clinton (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Hyson v. Architect of the Capitol (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Hampton v. Conner (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Baird v. Snowbarger (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Baird v. Snowbarger (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Franklin v. Potter (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Payne v. Salazar (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)
Franklin v. Potter (District Court, District of Columbia 2009)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The Court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for oral argument. See D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. The appellant has not identified any errors in the district court’s decision.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 en bane. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.