
    Ljubica RAJKOVIC, Appellant v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, et al., Appellees.
    No. 14-5168.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    March 25, 2015.
    Ljubica Rajkovic, pro se.
    USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appel-lees.
    Before: HENDERSON 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 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 order filed May 28, 2014, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file, a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 bane. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.  