John Corrigan v. D. Dale ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED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 Trooper; A. HILLE,
Judge; B. SCUDDER, Deputy Prosecutor,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. Corrigan argued in the motion for relief that, as the
court of registration under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (2006), the
district court had the power to grant him relief 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 the Defendants in a timely
manner—previously was litigated. Corrigan v. Dale, No. 2:07-cv-
00227-RHW (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2008). His claim for relief is
therefore barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
See Orca Yachts, L.L.C. v. Mollicam, Inc., 287 F.3d 316, 318
(4th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the principles of claim
preclusion and collateral estoppel).
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
denying Corrigan’s motion for relief. 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