Opinion
No. 11-1402
11-21-2011
ANGELA BACHMAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffrey Bachman, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, Defendants - Appellees.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joel H. Smith, Shawn B. Deery, BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Leslie Lane Mize, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00263-CCE-PTS)
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joel H. Smith, Shawn B. Deery, BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Leslie Lane Mize, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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