Court Opinion

ID: 9893684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 21:00:35.699874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:04.365923
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300      Doc: 8         Filed: 10/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1300

        BRENT CLARK,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DR. VIBEKE DANKWA, individually and in her official capacity,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00009-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: August 25, 2023                                    Decided: October 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brent Edward Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300       Doc: 8         Filed: 10/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Brent Clark appeals a district court order dismissing his claims alleging he received

        inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated at FCI Morgantown. Because those claims

        were barred by a federal statute, we affirm the district court’s judgment on alternative

        grounds. See, e.g., Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 624 (4th Cir. 2019) (observing that

        this Court may affirm the dismissal of a suit “on any ground supported by the record,” even

        if it is not the basis relied upon by the district court (quotation marks omitted)).

               Under the Federal Tort Claim Act’s aptly named “judgment bar,” a judgment in an

        action brought under the FTCA bars all future actions that: (1) arise out of the same set of

        facts; and (2) are brought against the federal employees whose conduct was challenged in

        the original suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2676 (“The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of

        this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same

        subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to

        the claim.”).

               That bar applies here. In 2021, Clark filed an FTCA action against several federal

        defendants, including Dr. Dankwa, arising out of the same set of facts at issue here.

        See Complaint, Clark v. United States, No. 5:21-cv-00027, ECF 1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 19,

        2021). That suit was resolved on the merits when the district court entered summary

        judgment against Clark. See Order, Clark v. United States, No. 5:21-cv-00027, ECF 168

        (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 28, 2022). Given that dismissal, any future claims arising out of those

        facts—whether brought under state or federal law—were barred. See Unus v. Kane, 565

        F.3d 103, 121–22 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing the FTCA’s judgment bar).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1300         Doc: 8     Filed: 10/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Clark’s claims. We also deny Clark’s

        pending motion for a stay pending appeal and his motion to remand the case to state court.

        Finally, 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.

                                                                                  SO ORDERED.

                                                    3