Donald Morrison v. Wayne Myers, No. 15-1155 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1155 DONALD MORRISON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAYNE R. MYERS; GEORGE B. CURRIN; STEPHEN A. WEST;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Morrison (“Appellant”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. Appellant’s claims were appeal, claims against barred Appellant under does The district court dismissed government the not officials doctrine challenge of res this because these judicata. finding; On 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.” 28(a)(8)(A). this rule abandonment Fed. R. App. P. “Failure to comply with the specific dictates of with of respect that claim to a on particular appeal.” claim Edwards triggers 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. affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. So we See Morrison v. Myers, No. 7:14-cv-00085 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015). We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
