Court Opinion

ID: 990064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:15:54.926041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:43.246165
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS L. WRENN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GILBERT F. CASELLAS, Chairman,
U.S. Equal Employment
                                                                   No. 95-1164
Opportunity Commission; DONNA E.
SHALALA, Secretary of Health and
Human Services; CEO/PRESIDENT
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND HOSPITAL,
and its Successor Organization,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-1925-JFM)

Submitted: November 30, 1995

Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and WILKINS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Curtis L. Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Carol Sanger, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Paul D.
Ramshaw, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTU-
NITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order finding that his claims
were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. It appears that a
decision in Wrenn v. Shalala. No. 94-5198 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 8, 1995)
(unpublished), may have destroyed the finality of a previous order,
rendering the bar of res judicata inapplicable. We therefore vacate the
decision of the district court. The case is remanded with instructions
that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. We grant the motion to file a supplemental
pleading. We dispense with oral argument because our review of the
record and other materials reveals that it would not aid the decisional
process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2