Brent Clark v. Vibeke Dankwa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 23-1300
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1300

BRENT CLARK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. VIBEKE DANKWA, individually and in her official capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00009-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: August 25, 2023 Decided: October 26, 2023

Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent Edward Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Brent Clark appeals a district court order dismissing his claims alleging he received

inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated at FCI Morgantown. Because those claims

were barred by a federal statute, we affirm the district court’s judgment on alternative

grounds. See, e.g., Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 624 (4th Cir. 2019) (observing that

this Court may affirm the dismissal of a suit “on any ground supported by the record,” even

if it is not the basis relied upon by the district court (quotation marks omitted)).

Under the Federal Tort Claim Act’s aptly named “judgment bar,” a judgment in an

action brought under the FTCA bars all future actions that: (1) arise out of the same set of

facts; and (2) are brought against the federal employees whose conduct was challenged in

the original suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2676 (“The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of

this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same

subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to

the claim.”).

That bar applies here. In 2021, Clark filed an FTCA action against several federal

defendants, including Dr. Dankwa, arising out of the same set of facts at issue here.

See Complaint, Clark v. United States, No. 5:21-cv-00027, ECF 1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 19,

2021). That suit was resolved on the merits when the district court entered summary

judgment against Clark. See Order, Clark v. United States, No. 5:21-cv-00027, ECF 168

(N.D. W. Va. Nov. 28, 2022). Given that dismissal, any future claims arising out of those

facts—whether brought under state or federal law—were barred. See Unus v. Kane, 565

F.3d 103, 121–22 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing the FTCA’s judgment bar).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Clark’s claims. We also deny Clark’s

pending motion for a stay pending appeal and his motion to remand the case to state court.

Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

SO ORDERED.