Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has been reviewed based on the court record and the appellant's brief. The court affirms the district court's order dated June 23, 2005, concluding that the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint was justified due to the appellant's failure to meet the service requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The appellate court refers to the precedent established in Moore v. Jackson, confirming that dismissals under Rule 4(m) are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Additionally, it is noted that this decision will not be published in accordance with D.C. Circuit Rule 36. The Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days, allowing time for any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, as stipulated in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41.
Legal Issues Addressed
Issuance of Mandate under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days to allow for any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
Reasoning: The Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days, allowing time for any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, as stipulated in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41.
Non-Publication of Decisions under D.C. Circuit Rule 36subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case will not be published, adhering to D.C. Circuit Rule 36.
Reasoning: Additionally, it is noted that this decision will not be published in accordance with D.C. Circuit Rule 36.
Service Requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case affirms the dismissal of the appellant's complaint due to failure to meet the service requirements as outlined in Rule 4(m).
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's order dated June 23, 2005, concluding that the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint was justified due to the appellant's failure to meet the service requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Standard of Review for Dismissals under Rule 4(m)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion, following the precedent established in Moore v. Jackson.
Reasoning: The appellate court refers to the precedent established in Moore v. Jackson, confirming that dismissals under Rule 4(m) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.