Pleasant v. Henderson ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1179
RUFUS PLEASANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-99-1459-A)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rufus Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Special Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rufus Pleasant appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendant in this employment discrimination
action. On appeal, Pleasant challenges the district court’s con-
clusion that his action was barred by res judicata, asserting that
the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of his first action was not
an adjudication on the merits. We have reviewed the record, the
district court’s order, and the transcript of the January 7, 2000,
hearing on the motion for summary judgment that contains the dis-
trict court’s reasoning. We agree with the district court that the
disposition of Pleasant’s first suit was an adjudication on the
merits. See Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 1985).
In his informal brief, Pleasant also makes various malpractice
allegations against his attorney, who also represented him in the
first action. Pleasant’s malpractice claim is not a basis for
invalidating the district court's order. See Sanchez v. United
States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Pleasant v. Henderson, No. CA-99-1459-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2000).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2