Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01220/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charita Douglas
Appellant
Instant Tax Service 10060, LLC
Appellant
Fesum Ogbazion

TCA Financial, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1220

INSTANT TAX SERVICE 10060, LLC; CHARITA DOUGLAS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

TCA FINANCIAL, LLC, a/k/a ITS Financial, LLC, d/b/a Instant 

Tax Service,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

FESUM OGBAZION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:08-cv-02364-PJM)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald M. Temple, TEMPLE LAW GROUP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellants. Norman M. Leon, DLA PIPER LLP, Chicago, Illinois,

for Appellee.

Appeal: 09-1220 Doc: 42 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1220 Doc: 42 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Instant Tax Service 10060, LLC and Charita Douglas 

appeal the district court’s order granting TCA Financial, LLC’s

motion for summary judgment and dismissing Douglas’ claims under 

the doctrine of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and 

Douglas’ arguments and affirm on the reasoning of the district 

court as stated during the hearing on the motion. Douglas v. 

TCA Financial, LLC, No. 8:08-cv-02364-PJM (D. Md. filed Jan. 26, 

2009; entered Jan. 27, 2009). Furthermore, we find Douglas 

waived review of her claims regarding RICO and wrongful 

termination because she failed to claim in the district court 

that the claims were not barred by res judicata. Holly Hill 

Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 267 (4th Cir. 2006); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 687 (4th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 09-1220 Doc: 42 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 3 of 3