John Corrigan v. D. Dale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-mc-00006-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998902702]. Mailed to: Corrigan. [12-6764]

Appeal: 12-6764

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6764

JOHN L. CORRIGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. DALE, WSP Trooper; D. BURT, WSP
Judge; B. SCUDDER, Deputy Prosecutor,

Trooper;

A.

HILLE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-mc-00006-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se.
Alexander McDonald
Laughlin, WILEY REIN, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6764

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John

L.

Corrigan

filed

a

self-styled

“Motion

for

Relief from Judgment or Order” in which he moved the district
court to declare as void orders of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary
judgment

to

the

Defendants

in

his

civil

rights

action

and

awarding Defendants Hille and Scudder $10,822.51 in attorney’s
fees.
court

Corrigan argued in the motion for relief that, as the
of

district

registration
court

had

under

the

28
to

power

U.S.C.
grant

§ 1963
him

(2006),

relief

the

from

the

Eastern District of Washington’s erroneous determination that it
was not required to dismiss the action without prejudice based
his failure to serve Defendants within the time limit prescribed
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

The district court denied Corrigan’s

motion, and he now appeals.

We affirm.

The substance of Corrigan’s contention in the motion
for relief—that the Eastern District of Washington’s orders were
void

because

he

failed

to

serve

manner—previously was litigated.

the

Defendants

barred

by

the

a

timely

Corrigan v. Dale, No. 2:07-cv-

00227-RHW (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2008).
therefore

in

doctrine

His claim for relief is
of

collateral

estoppel.

See Orca Yachts, L.L.C. v. Mollicam, Inc., 287 F.3d 316, 318
(4th

Cir.

2002)

(setting

forth

preclusion and collateral estoppel).
2

the

principles

of

claim

Appeal: 12-6764

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/26/2012

Accordingly,

we

Pg: 3 of 3

affirm

the

denying Corrigan’s motion for relief.

district

court’s

order

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

3