BACHMAN v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, 11-1402. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20111121083
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Bachman ("Bachman"), as personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey Bachman, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata because of Bachman's earlier California action. See Jaffe v. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co. , 294 F.3d 584 , 590-91 (4
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Bachman ("Bachman"), as personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey Bachman, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata because of Bachman's earlier California action. See Jaffe v. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co. , 294 F.3d 584 , 590-91 (4t..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angela Bachman ("Bachman"), as personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey Bachman, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata because of Bachman's earlier California action. See Jaffe v. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co., 294 F.3d 584, 590-91 (4th Cir. 2002) (regarding full faith and credit given to prior state court actions in any later federal suit). We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), see Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009), and our review of the record reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bachman v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 1:10-cv-00263-CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2011). 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.
Source: Leagle
