Graham v. Williams, 1:15-cv-01967

Graham, a Maryland inmate, filed a §1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference for not replacing a partial dental plate after tooth extractions in 2014.
He complained the private contractor dentists and DOC policy denied the partial plate unless at least five teeth were missing, causing pain and chewing difficulties.
Graham pursued prison grievance channels, which reportedly could not resolve the issue due to contract-based care.
He requested injunctive relief compelling provision of a replacement partial plate.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judicata and related doctrines; Graham argued prior state proceedings should be exhaustion, not a bar.
The court sua sponte addressed res judicata and Rooker-Feldman issues and granted dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Graham's federal claim	Graham contends prior state court proceedings exhaustion, not claim‑preclusion.	Williams/Graves argue identical claim was litigated and final in state court.	Res judicata applies; federal claim barred.
Whether Rooker-Feldman abstention bars review	Graham seeks federal review of state‑court decision on his medical claim.	State judgment bars federal review under Rooker-Feldman.	Rooker-Feldman applies; federal court abstains.

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (res judicata foundation and preclusion purpose)
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (preclusion avoids expense and vexation of multiple suits)
Cochran v. Griffith Energy Servs., Inc., 426 Md. 134 (2012) (three conditions for res judicata under Maryland law)
Powell v. Breslin, 430 Md. 52 (2013) ( Maryland preclusion principles and final judgment)
Esslinger v. Baltimore City, 622 A.2d 774 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993) (application to administrative determinations)
American Reliable Insurance v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman abstention principle)
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) (Rooker-Feldman framework and jurisdictional basis)
Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1997) (sua sponte application of Rooker-Feldman)