
    Robert G. MODRALL, Appellant v. Melissa FREY, et al., Appellees
    No. 16-7074
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: October 19, 2016
    Rehearing En Banc Denied December 2, 2016
    Robert G. Modrall, Pro Se.
    BEFORE: Brown and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, 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 appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 16, 2016, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the complaint did not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Although the complaint alleged retaliation against appellant for his exercise of First Amendment rights, it did not clearly describe any activity by appellant protected by the First Amendment.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.  