[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 5, 2010
No. 10-11389 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-00323-GKS-DAB
CHARLIE ROBINSON,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Walter McNeil,
JAMES CROSBY,
Former, Secretary Department of Corrections,
ORLESTER DICKENS,
Secretary’s Representative,
MONICA DAVID,
Commissioner/Chairman,
TENA M. PATE,
Commissioner/Vice Chairman,
et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 5, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Robinson appeals pro se the dismissal of his second complaint that
employees of the Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Parole
Commission violated his constitutional rights by denying him “gain time” after the
revocation of his controlled release. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it dismissed Robinson’s second
complaint. Although Robinson did not request damages in his first complaint, his
second complaint “‘arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts, or is based
upon the same factual predicate, as [his] former action.” Griswold v. Cnty. of
Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ragsdale v.
Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 1999)). Robinson’s complaint
is barred by res judicata.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Robinson’s complaint.
2