Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-01
Citations: 380 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 09-1220
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 250–250

Head Matter:
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.
No. 09-1220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2010.
Decided: June 1, 2010.
Donald M. Temple, Temple Law Group, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Norman M. Leon, DLA Piper LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.