Case Name: Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees; Raymond A. Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hendrick Automotive Group; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-25
Citations: 471 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: Nos. 12-1217, 12-1241
Parties: Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees. Raymond A. Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hendrick Automotive Group; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees. Raymond A. Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hendrick Automotive Group; Hendrick Honda, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 12-1217, 12-1241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 25, 2012.
Raymond A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Raymond A. Johnson appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims, denying his motions to reconsider, and dismissing identical employment discrimination claims as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error or evidence of judicial bias. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Hendrick Auto. Group, No. 3:10-cv-00109-FDW, 2011 WL 1696987 (W.D.N.C. May 3, 2011), 2011 WL 6032706 (Dec. 5, 2011), & 2012 WL 525478 (Feb. 16, 2012); Johnson v. Hendrick Auto. Group, No. 3:11-cv-00389-FDW-DCK, 2012 WL 525478 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2012). We deny Johnson's motions for the preparation of transcripts at government expense and to reconsider the order consolidating his appeals. 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.