Case Name: Charlie ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter McNeil, James Crosby, Former, Secretary Department of Corrections, Orlester Dickens, Secretary's Representative, Monica David, Commissioner/Chairman, Tena M. Pate, Commissioner/Vice Chairman, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-05
Citations: 390 F. App'x 960
Docket Number: No. 10-11389
Parties: Charlie ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter McNeil, James Crosby, Former, Secretary Department of Corrections, Orlester Dickens, Secretary’s Representative, Monica David, Commissioner/Chairman, Tena M. Pate, Commissioner/Vice Chairman, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 960–961

Head Matter:
Charlie ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter McNeil, James Crosby, Former, Secretary Department of Corrections, Orlester Dickens, Secretary’s Representative, Monica David, Commissioner/Chairman, Tena M. Pate, Commissioner/Vice Chairman, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-11389
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 5, 2010.
Charlie Robinson, Holly Hill, FL, pro se.
Bill McCollum, Office of the Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Robinson appeals pro se the dismissal of his second complaint that employees of the Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Parole Commission violated his constitutional rights by denying him "gain time" after the revocation of his controlled release. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it dismissed Robinson's second complaint. Although Robinson did not request damages in his first complaint, his second complaint " 'arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts, or is based upon the same factual predicate, as [his] former action." Griswold v. Cnty. of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir.2010) (quoting Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir.1999)). Robinson's complaint is barred by res judicata.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Robinson's complaint.