Eugene Cavicchi v. Homeland Security Sec. , 154 F. App'x 189 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-11065 NOVEMBER 14, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-21764-CV-JEM
EUGENE CAVICCHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY,
Michael Chertoff, and the United States Department
of Homeland Security by and through the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 14, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Eugene Cavicchi appeals from the January 12,
2005 order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on Appellant’s claims of
discrimination on the basis of age, violation of the FMLA, retaliation in violation
of Title VII, and violation of the Privacy Act. The instant case is closely related
to a previous suit brought by Cavicchi against the same defendants. The district
court granted summary judgment in the previous case, and this Court affirmed in
an extensive unpublished opinion, No. 04-10451-FF (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2004). We
conclude that many, and possibly all, of the claims brought in the instant suit are
barred by res judicata.
With respect to the few claims that may not be barred by res judicata, the
district court in the instant case addressed the merits thereof and granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants.1 In that regard and for substantially the same
reasons set out by the district court, we agree that summary judgment was due to
be granted in favor of defendants.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.2
1
The parties consented in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and thus the order
entered by the magistrate judge (Docket 134) constitutes the judgment of the district court in this
case.
2
Appellant’s motion to incorporate the briefs from the prior appeal is denied as
moot, the same already being available to the panel.
2