Legal Opinion
Tinsley v. Widener
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 19, 2001No. Civ.A. 000157(RMU)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
URBINA, District Judge.
Granting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The plaintiff, Edward G. Tinsley (“the plaintiff’ or “Mr. Tinsley”), brought this pro se suit for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. The plaintiff claims that federal judges wrongfully dismissed his civil lawsuit. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the dismissal and its subsequent affirmance violated his Seventh…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Zakiya v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Sibley v. RobertsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Harbison v. U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign RelationsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Edwards v. WilkinsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- America First Legal Foundation v. GarlandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2026
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.