Case Name: Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; John H. Kim, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; T.B. Smith, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Spata, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-02
Citations: 586 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 14-1767
Parties: Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; John H. Kim, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; T.B. Smith, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Spata, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; John H. Kim, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; T.B. Smith, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Spata, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1767.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 25, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 2, 2014.
Eric S. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie Marie Greenzweig, Fairfax County Attorney’s Office, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before GREGORY and AGEE, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric S. Clark appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Clark v. Cnty. of Fairfax, No. 1:14-cv-00286-LMB-JFA, 2014 WL 3615874 (E.D.Va. July 21, 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.