Case Name: Wayne Michael REAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-06
Citations: 551 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 13-30488
Parties: Wayne Michael REAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 139–139

Head Matter:
Wayne Michael REAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Department of Corrections; Louisiana State Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-30488
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2014.
Wayne Michael Reavis, Jr., Slidell, LA, pro se.
Michael Courtney Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Reavis, Jr., pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP"), sued the various state defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages and immediate release from confinement based on an alleged miscalculation of his sentence. The allegations are virtually identical to those in another federal suit that was dismissed and not appealed. Here, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed with prejudice, primarily on the ground of res judicata.
As the magistrate judge said, quoting Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir.1989), "IFP complaints may be dismissed as frivolous . when they seek to relitigate claims which allege substantially the same facts arising from a common series of events which have already been unsuccessfully litigated by the IFP plaintiff." The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.