Donald Morrison v. Wayne Myers

Fourth Circuit

Donald Morrison v. Wayne Myers

611 F. App'x 146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2015

Docket15-1155

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 F. App'x 146 (Donald Morrison v. Wayne Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald Morrison v. Wayne Myers, 611 F. App'x 146 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by Unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Morrison (“Appellant”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. The district court dismissed Appellant’s claims against government officials because these claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. On appeal, Appellant does not challenge this finding; instead, Appellant focuses on the merits of his claim against a single individual.

*147 An appellant must present his or her “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). “Failure to comply with the specific dictates of this rule with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).

Appellant has not challenged the district court’s determination that the doctrine of res judicata bars Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, Appellant has abandoned his claim that the district court erred by finding these claims barred. So we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Morrison v. Myers, No. 7:14-cv-00085, 2015 WL 72129 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by Unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Morrison (“Appellant”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. The district court dismissed Appellant’s claims against government officials because these claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. On appeal, Appellant does not challenge this finding; instead, Appellant focuses on the merits of his claim against a single individual.

*147 An appellant must present his or her “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). “Failure to comply with the specific dictates of this rule with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).

Appellant has not challenged the district court’s determination that the doctrine of res judicata bars Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, Appellant has abandoned his claim that the district court erred by finding these claims barred. So we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Morrison v. Myers, No. 7:14-cv-00085, 2015 WL 72129 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 F. App'x 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-morrison-v-wayne-myers-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack