Elbert Hicks v. Megan Brennan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00089-MSD-LRL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000288586]. Mailed to: E Hicks. [17-1762]

Appeal: 17-1762

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/04/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1762

ELBERT HICKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General U.S. Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00089-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: April 23, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elbert Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 4, 2018

Appeal: 17-1762

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/04/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Elbert Hicks appeals the district court’s order (1) denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
motion to reconsider its partial grant of Appellee’s first motion to dismiss, (2) granting
Appellee’s Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider its partial denial of Appellee’s first motion to
dismiss, and (3) granting Appellee’s second motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. We conclude that Hicks’ restoration of rights claim is
barred on the basis of res judicata, a defense raised by Appellee below. See United States
ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting that “we may
affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground apparent in the record”); Pueschel v. United
States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing elements of res judicata). For the
remainder of Hicks’ claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hicks
v. Brennan, No. 2:16-cv-00089-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2016 & Apr. 27, 2017).
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

2