UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES H. DICKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF HARTSVILLE; MEMBERS OF THE
HARTSVILLE CITY COUNCIL; WILLIE D.
HERBERT, individually and in his
official capacity as city building
                                            No. 97-2434
inspector; BUSINESS LICENSE INSPECTOR,
of the City of Hartsville; WILLIAM F.
BURTON, JR., individually and in his
official capacity as city manager of the
City of Hartsville; MATT CANARRELLA,
individually and as mayor of the City
of Hartsville,
Defendants-Appellees.

JAMES H. DICKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF HARTSVILLE; CITY COUNCIL OF
                                            No. 98-1117
NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, Members of the
City Council; WILLIE D. HERBERT,
Individually and in his official capacity
as City Building Inspector;
WILLIAM F. BURTON, JR., Individually
and in his official capacity as City
Manager of the City of Hartsville;
MATT CANARRELLA, Individually and as
Mayor of the City of Hartsville;
WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK &
WILLIAMS, PA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-93-1117-3-23, CA-97-3037-3-10BD)

Submitted: April 28, 1998

Decided: June 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James H. Hickey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Wilson Buyck, Jr., Robert
Thomas King, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A.,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

                    2
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Dickey appeals from district court orders denying his
request to reopen his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994),
and awarding costs and attorney fees to the Appellees. The district
court properly dismissed Dickey's action seeking vacatur of the
court's prior order granting Defendants summary judgment, as this
Court affirmed that order in Dickey v. City of Hartsville, 112 F.3d 508
(4th Cir. 1997) (table), which effectively bars any further pursuit of
that action under the res judicata doctrine. See Allen v. McCurry, 449
U.S. 90, 94 (1980). It follows that the district court was also unautho-
rized to grant Dickey relief on any of his post-judgment motions relat-
ing to the dismissed action. Accordingly, we affirm the orders
appealed from in case number 98-1117.

In appeal number 97-2434, Dickey challenges the district court's
order granting costs and attorney fees in the amount of $10,000 to
Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1994). An award of costs
is proper under the statute if the action was frivolous, unreasonable,
or groundless, or if the Plaintiff continued to litigate it after it clearly
became so. Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422
(1978). In this case, the district court granted summary judgment after
Dickey failed to produce a single piece of evidence supporting his
claims of discrimination despite being afforded discovery for three
years and liberal access to the Defendants' records.

Accordingly, the district court's order awarding fees and costs is
also affirmed. Dickey's motion to correct and/or supplement the
record is denied. 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

                     3
