
    William WILBORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALIFAX COUNTY (VIRGINIA) SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1690
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2017
    Decided: April 7, 2017
    
      Melvin E. Williams, MEL WILLIAMS PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. R. Craig Wood, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Tyler S. Laugh-inghouse, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; E. Rebecca Gantt, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Wilborn appeals the district court’s order granting the Halifax County School Board’s (“School Board”) motion to dismiss his claims as barred by Virginia’s i’es judicata rule. We affirm.

Wilborn filed suit in state court against the School Board, in which he alleged a violation of his due process rights and breach of contract following the School Board’s decision to terminate his employment. Wilborn later nonsuited his breach-of-contraet claim. The School Board filed a demurrer, and the state court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Wilborn’s due-process claim with prejudice. Wilborn filed a second suit against the School Board, reasserting his previously nonsuit-ed breach-of-contract claim and adding two additional claims. The School Board removed the action to federal district court, asserted a res judicata defense, and moved to dismiss the second complaint. Because Wilborn’s claims involve the same parties and stem from the same conduct or occurrence—his termination—we agree that Virginia’s res judicata rule bars his claims. See Va. Sup. Ct. R. 1:6 (res judicata claim. preclusion).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilborn v. Halifax Cty. Sch. Bd., No. 4:16-cv-00008-JLK-RSB, 2016 WL 2997511 (W.D. Va. May 23, 2016). We grant the Halifax County School Board’s motion to submit this case on the briefs because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  