IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10516
Summary Calendar
GERALD L. BRUMLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
MARIE C. KALB, Claims Manager for the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-1288-D
- - - - - - - - - -
May 22, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gerald L. Brumley contends that the district court erred in
concluding that his lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Four conditions must be satisfied to apply the
doctrine. “First, the parties in a later action must be
identical to (or at least be in privity with) the parties in a
prior action. Second, the judgment in the prior action must have
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Third, the
prior action must have concluded with a final judgment on the
merits. Fourth, the same claim or cause of action must be
involved in both suits.” United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305,
310 (5th Cir. 1994)(internal citations omitted). The Eight
Circuit was a court of competent jurisdiction and it rendered a
final judgment in the prior case. See Brumley v. United States
Dep’t of Labor, 28 F.3d 746, 746-48 (8th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 734 (1995).
Both suits arise from the Departmentr of Labor’s decision
not to give effect to Brumley's election of benefits because he
did not complete form CA-8. See Slaughter v. AT&T Information
Systems, Inc., 905 F.2d 92, 93-94 (5th Cir 1990); Agrilectric
Power Partners, Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 20 F.3d 663, 664
(5th Cir. 1994).
On appeal, Brumley does not challenge the district court
conclusion that Kalb was in privity with the Department of Labor
as their employee. As this issue was not discussed in the brief,
it is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court
"will not raise and discuss legal issues that [an appellant] has
failed to assert." Id.
The Department of Labor’s motion to supplement the record is
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.