Opinion
No. 11-7003.
Filed: September 27, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:10-cv-01519-ESH.
Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant provides no support for her claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case. See Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (declining to address argument raised on appeal where pro se litigant "offered no legal analysis in support of it"). The district court correctly concluded that appellant's action is barred by res judicata.See In re Estate of Gray, 834 A.2d 859, 861 (D.C. 2003);see generally Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). The Superior Court's dismissal of appellant's prior case with prejudice operated as a final judgment for res judicata purposes. See Gray, 834 A.2d at 861. Further, res judicata bars not only claims which were raised in appellant's first complaint, but also those arising out of the same transaction which could have been raised.See Patton v. Klein, 746 A.2d 866, 869 (D.C. 1999). Finally, in view of the record showing mail was addressed to the address she provided, appellant provides no basis upon which to conclude she was denied a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" the prior Superior Court action. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 (1980); see D.C. Civil Rule 10-1(b).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.