Buckner v. United Parcel Service Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-109-D

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BUCKNER, _) Plsinitt, v. ORDER UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ; Defendant. ; Christopher Eugene Buckner (“Buckner” or “plaintiff’) repeatedly has sued United Parcel

. Service, Inc. “UPS” or “defendant”) and lost. See Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:17- CV-417-BO, 2017 WL 5012584 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017) (unpublished) (“Buckner IV”); Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-644-D, 2016 WL 6477048 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2016) (unpublished) (“Buckner IIT”), aff'd, 690 F. App’x 842 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished); Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:14-CV-539-FL, 2015 WL 5603369 (EDNC. Sept. 23, 2015) (unpublished), aff'd, 641 F. App’x 262 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished); Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-411-BR, 2012 WL 1596726 (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2012) (unpublished), aff'd, 489 F. App’x 709 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished), cert. denied, $71 U.S. 819 (2013). In light of Buckner III and Buckner IV, claim preclusion bars Buckner’s action. See, e.g., Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-55 (1979); Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004); Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694, 704-05 (4th Cir. 1999); Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057-58 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Tatum, 943 F.2d 370, 381-82 (4th Cir. 1991); Keith v. Aldridge, 900 F.2d 736, 739-40 (4th Cir. 1990); Peugeot Motors of Am.., Inc. v. E. Auto Distribs., Inc, 892 F.2d 355, 359-60 (4th Cir. 1989); Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co., 872 F.2d 1178, 1181-82 (4th Cir. 1989). Alternatively, for the

additional reasons set forth in UPS’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss [D.E. 26-1] and UPS’s reply brief [D.E. 29], the court dismisses Buckner’s action. . In sum, the court GRANTS UPS’s motion to dismiss [D.E. 26] and DISMISSES with prejudice Buckner’s amended complaint [D.E. 16]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This _{ | day of December 2019. ss C. DEVER I . United States District Judge