Donald Morrison v. Wayne R. Myers; George B. Currin; Stephen A. West; Dennis Duffy; S. Katherine Burnette

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1155
DONALD MORRISON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WAYNE R. MYERS; GEORGE B. CURRIN; STEPHEN A. WEST; DENNIS
DUFFY; S. KATHERINE BURNETTE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00085-BR)
Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: August 4, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; David
Stebbins Coats, John Thomas Crook, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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.
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 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --