Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01155/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1155 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/04/2015 Pg: 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 

Appeal: 15-1155 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/04/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1155 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/04/2015 Pg: 3 of 3