Case Name: Donald MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne R. MYERS; George B. Currin; Stephen A. West; Dennis Duffy; S. Katherine Burnette, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-04
Citations: 611 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 15-1155
Parties: Donald MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne R. MYERS; George B. Currin; Stephen A. West; Dennis Duffy; S. Katherine Burnette, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
Donald MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne R. MYERS; George B. Currin; Stephen A. West; Dennis Duffy; S. Katherine Burnette, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2015.
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.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by Unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 2015 WL 72129 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.