MURPHY v. SSI OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sheila M. MURPHY, Appellant v. SSI, OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW, Appellee

No. 18-5300

Decided: January 29, 2019

BEFORE: Griffith and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge Sheila M. Murphy, Washington, DC, pro se. R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by 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 July 17, 2018 order dismissing appellant's complaint without prejudice, and the district court's August 20, 2018 order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant's amended complaint failed to identify any action on the part of the appellee agency that she sought to challenge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Per Curiam