CUNNINGHAM v. DOES (2020)

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and appendices filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the exhibits and notices filed by appellant, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's orders filed November 13, 2019, November 27, 2019, and January 2, 2020, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Nor has appellant shown any abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of his motion to compel and his motion for reconsideration. See Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Office of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 818 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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