Topic
Every decision we've filed under Civil.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed Latoshia Reeves' appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the procedural rulings denying Reeves' motions to shield records or enter default judgment.
The D.C. Circuit denied Evergreen Shipping's petition for review, upholding the Federal Maritime Commission's order that detention charges levied during a port closure were unjust and unreasonable. The court affirmed that the Commission reasonably applied the Shipping Act's incentive principle to conclude that fees cannot promote freight fluidity when equipment cannot physically be returned.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Wade Reeves' pro se complaint against state officials for failing to meet the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in closing the case without granting leave to amend because the complaint lacked a short, plain statement of the claim and the proposed amendments would have been futile.
The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for an extraordinary writ seeking to enjoin a state court order that prohibited the petitioner from practicing law. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to issue such relief because the requested injunction was not incidental to its appellate jurisdiction and the petitioner had other adequate means to challenge the order.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a BIA denial of cancellation of removal, holding it lacked jurisdiction over discretionary hardship determinations and factual findings. The court further rejected a claim regarding a defective Notice to Appear because the petitioner failed to exhaust the argument before the agency.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings and civil rights lawsuit brought by homeowners alleging government-induced flooding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim because they relied on conclusory allegations and could not prove a government physical invasion or regulatory taking.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII claim because the plaintiff failed to file a formal EEO complaint within the mandatory 15-day window. The court held that this statutory deadline is a non-waivable claim-processing rule that bars federal litigation when missed.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an immigration order denying asylum and withholding of removal to a Mexican national. The court held that the record did not compel a contrary conclusion regarding the petitioner's failure to prove a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a particular social group.
The Sixth Circuit denies petitions for review, affirming that Arch Resources remains liable for black lung benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court holds that Arch's arguments are precluded by binding precedent from a prior published decision involving identical facts.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pro se litigant's motion for sanctions, ruling that the motion failed to satisfy the mandatory safe harbor provision and was untimely. The court also upheld the rejection of a motion for reconsideration because the appellant failed to identify errors or present new evidence.