Johnson v. PennyMac — Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal on res judicata grounds

Case
Brad R. Johnson v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC; Standard Guaranty Insurance Company; Assurant Inc.
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Judge
G. Steven Agee (George W. Bush, 2008); Allison Jones Rushing (Donald Trump, 2019); William B. Traxler Jr. (William J. Clinton, 1998)
Date Decided
August 24, 2026
Docket No.
25-1646
Topics
Res Judicata; Rule 59(e); Civil Procedure; Pro Se Litigation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Brad R. Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Assurant Inc. The District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds.

Johnson moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the dismissal order. After the district court denied that motion, Johnson appealed both the dismissal and the denial of postjudgment relief.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court orders. After reviewing the parties’ appellate arguments, the record, and the relevant authorities, the panel concluded that there was no reversible error.

The unpublished per curiam opinion did not separately analyze the elements of res judicata or the standards governing Rule 59(e). The court also dispensed with oral argument because it found the written materials adequate and concluded that argument would not aid the decisional process.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth Circuit left intact the dismissal of Johnson’s complaint on res judicata grounds.
  • The court also affirmed the denial of Johnson’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the dismissal order.
  • The opinion is unpublished and states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

Why It Matters

The decision ends Johnson’s appeal without disturbing either challenged district court ruling. Because the Fourth Circuit provided only a no-reversible-error determination, the opinion offers no detailed appellate analysis of res judicata or Rule 59(e).

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top