Opinion
22-5257
04-26-2023
Karl Ray Masek, Appellant v. Rob Isonta, Attorney General, et al Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Pillard and Childs, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
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 29, 2022 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case without prejudice after appellant twice failed to comply with court orders that he file a compliant amended complaint. See Ripalda v. Am. Operations Corp., 977 F.2d 1464, 1466 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Although appellant has attached to his brief a proposed amended complaint, he did not file this complaint in district court and has not explained why he could not have timely done so.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.