Summary
relying on Kidd to interpret the revised Rule 58
Summary of this case from Conservation Force v. SalazarOpinion
No. 08-7151.
Filed On: June 22, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance, and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 23, 2008, more than thirty days after the November 21, 2008 entry of the challenged order. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A). Appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the "mailbox rule" because he has been released from prison. See Fed.R.App.P. 25(a)(2)(A), (C). Moreover, the district court's dismissal order was "sufficiently terse" so as to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 728 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.