A federal judge in Texas has dismissed Lance Armstrong's lawsuit seeking to end the United States Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into his alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs. The judge found that Armstrong's due process claim lacked merit, and determined that the court either lacked jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims or declined to grant equitable relief on those claims.
Original Title
Judge Dismisses Lance Armstrong's Bid to End Doping Inquiry
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed Lance Armstrong's lawsuit seeking to end the United States Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into his alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs. The judge found that Armstrong's due process claim lacked merit, and determined that the court either lacked jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims or declined to grant equitable relief on those claims.
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed Lance Armstrong's lawsuit seeking to end the United States Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into his alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs. The judge found that Armstrong's due process claim lacked merit, and determined that the court either lacked jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims or declined to grant equitable relief on those claims.
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 6 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 7 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 8 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 9 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 10 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 11 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 12 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 14 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 15 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 16 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 17 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 18 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 19 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 20 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 21 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 22 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 23 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 24 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 25 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 26 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 27 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 28 of 30
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 29 of 30 A g e n c y ' s M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s [ # 3 3 ] i s G R A N T E D ; I T I S F I N A L L Y O R D E R E D t h a t t h e a b o v e - s t y l e d c a u s e i s D I S M I S S E D W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E . S I G N E D t h i s t h e 2 0 d a y o f A u g u s t 2 0 1 2 . S A M S P A R K S 3 . / U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T J U D G E 6 0 6 d i s m o r d 2 m j h . w p d - 3 0 - Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 56 Filed 08/20/12 Page 30 of 30