522 F.3d 477 (3rd Cir. 2008), 07-1407, Elhassan v. Goss

Docket Nº:07-1407.
Citation:522 F.3d 477
Party Name:Khalid ELHASSAN, Appellant v. Porter GOSS, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Agent Travis Close; Agent Patrick Eager; Agent Wanda Mitchell; Agent "Eric"; John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, such names being ficticious.
Case Date:April 11, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 477

522 F.3d 477 (3rd Cir. 2008)

Khalid ELHASSAN, Appellant

v.

Porter GOSS, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Agent Travis Close; Agent Patrick Eager; Agent Wanda Mitchell; Agent "Eric"; John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10, such names being ficticious.

No. 07-1407.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

April 11, 2008

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 8, 2008

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 06-CV-1000, District Judge: The Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Khalid A. Elhassan, Edison, NJ, pro se.

Susan Handler-Menahem, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT ORDER

D. BROOKS SMITH, Circuit Judge.

On January 30, 2007, in a comprehensive opinion, the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and against appellant on his claims of constitutional violations and his numerous tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This timely appeal1 came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted on April 8, 2008. On consideration thereof, and substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered on January 30, 2007, be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed against the appellant.


Notes:

[1] Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a District Court's grant of a motion for summary judgment. Shuman ex rel Shertzer v. Penn Manor School District, 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 2005).


To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP