Case Name: Emmanuel EDOKOBI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M & M MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; Juan Gonzalez; Mortgage Specialist, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-19
Citations: 597 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 14-2204
Parties: Emmanuel EDOKOBI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M & M MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; Juan Gonzalez; Mortgage Specialist, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
Emmanuel EDOKOBI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M & M MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; Juan Gonzalez; Mortgage Specialist, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-2204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 19, 2015.
Emmanuel Edokobi, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen James Marshall, Andrew Thor Stephenson, Franklin & Prokopik, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Edokobi appeals the district court's orden granting the motion to dismiss filed by M & M Mortgage Services, Inc., and Juan Gonzalez and dismissing his complaint against all Defendants as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Edokobi v. M & M Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-03707-PWG, 2014 WL 5393527 (D.Md. Oct. 22, 2014). 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.
Although the prefiling injunction determination remains pending in the district court, it appears that the district court has completed its consideration of the merits of this case based on its dismissal of Edokobi's claims. See Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of the Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs & Participating Emp'rs, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 773, 779, 187 L.Ed.2d 669 (2014) (holding pending motion for attorney's fees collateral to merits for finality purposes). We therefore conclude that the district court's order dismissing Edokobi's complaint as barred by res judicata is final and appealable.