Heather Morris; Pamela Stumpf; Lula V. Dickerson; Lisa Wilkinson; Kathryn A. Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Commission on Special Investigations; Jim Justice; John B. McCuskey; Patrick Morrisey; John Perdue; Mac Warner; West Virginia Office of Secretary of State; West Virginia Office of the Attorney General; West Virginia State Auditor’s Office; West Virginia State Office of the Governor; West Virginia State Treasurer's Office, Defendants. (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Stacy FACEMIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Heather Morris; Pamela Stumpf; Lula V. Dickerson; Lisa Wilkinson; Kathryn A. Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS; Chief Justice Timothy Paul Armstead, in his official capacity as Chief Justice, Defendants-Appellees, Commission on Special Investigations; Jim Justice; John B. McCuskey; Patrick Morrisey; John Perdue; Mac Warner; West Virginia Office of Secretary of State; West Virginia Office of the Attorney General; West Virginia State Auditor’s Office; West Virginia State Office of the Governor; West Virginia State Treasurer's Office, Defendants.

No. 20-1686

Decided: December 08, 2020

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

J. Michael Ranson, Cynthia M. Ranson, RANSON LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; G. Patrick Jacobs, LAW OFFICE OF G. PATRICK JACOBS, LC, Charleston, West Virginia; Teresa C. Toriseva, TORISEVA LAW, Wheeling, West Virginia; Robert G. McCoid, MCCOID LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Bryan R. Cokeley, Mark C. Dean, Robert L. Bailey, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Stacy Facemire appeals from the district court's order dismissing her suit as barred by claim and issue preclusion. In her opening brief, Facemire fails to challenge the basis for the district court's order. Even after being alerted to her failure in Appellees’ brief, Facemire still did not address res judicata in her reply brief. Accordingly, we conclude that Facemire has waived any objection to the district court's conclusions. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)). As such, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law