
    Emmett Johnson JAFARI, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 15-5139.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Oct. 1, 2015.
    Emmett Johnson Jafari, Richmond, VA, pro se.
    April Denise Seabrook, R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    BEFORE: HENDERSON and ROGERS, 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 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 dismissal of appellant’s complaint on the ground of judicial immunity be affirmed. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Notwithstanding the fact that appellant named the United States as defendant, the district court correctly determined that “the only alleged actors are shielded by judicial immunity.” Memorandum Opinion at 3.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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