The lawsuit Republican California Congressman Devin Nunes filed against the Washington Post regarding a report that Nunes had told the White House about a statement made in closed committee hearings about the Russian election interference investigation relating to now-outgoing president Donald Trump has been dismissed by the DC Federal District Court.

The Court cited as justification for dismissing the suit Nunes’s failure to notify one of the parties he attempted to sue, Post writer Shane Harris, and Nunes’s lawyers inability to cite what action taken by the Post or Harris amounted to a defamation or conspiracy.

“In moving to dismiss, the Post argued that the Complaint failed to sufficiently allege a false and defamatory statement and actual malice, and that the civil conspiracy claim failed for the same reasons,” the ruling states.

The case involved two distinct claims by Nunes:  that the Washington Post intentionally lied about his meeting with Trump, which took place in February 2020 and that the Post conspired with House Democrats to defame him.

During the meeting, Nunes reportedly told Trump about testimony by senior intelligence official Shelby Pierson, who told the House Intelligence Committee that Russia had interfered in US elections to benefit Trump.

The article stated that after learning about the testimony from Nunes, Trump believed that only Democratic Committee Chair Adam Schiff had heard the report and became enraged at acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire in an Oval Office meeting, which ultimately led to Maguire failing to secure the position permanently.

Nunes, however, failed to present any evidence that information in the story was false, malicious or designed to defame him.  In fact, he presented no evidence but the mere allegation, claiming simply that by implication, the story was defamatory.

“Plaintiff’s second alleged implication fares no better,” the decision reads, noting that neither the House Democrats nor the Post attempted to defame Nunes by claiming he single-handedly undermined Maguire’s promotion.  In fact, neither the story nor any Democratic leader cited by the Post made such a claim, instead blaming it on Trump’s rage and misunderstanding of facts.

The Court also ruled that Nunes cannot file an amended complaint, declaring that any further complaint would still fail on its face to prove any malice, defamation or harm to Nunes.