United States of America v. Dr. Ibrahim Oudeh

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DR. IBRAHIM OUDEH,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
HANAN KHAROUFEH; THE NAIM TRUST; FUMYXS, LLC; 4642 JONES
TRUST; 421 GROVEMONT TRUST,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00140-D)
Argued: September 9, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025
Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Brenton D. Adams, BRENT ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, Dunn, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Neal Fowler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael F. Easley, United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Ibrahim N. Oudeh appeals the district court’s order dismissing his counterclaim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on res judicata. We affirm.
We review the district court’s dismissal based on res judicata de novo. See
Providence Hall Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 816 F.3d 273, 276 (4th
Cir. 2016). To prevail on grounds of res judicata, the following elements must be satisfied:
“(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in
both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two
suits.” Providence Hall Assocs., 816 F.3d at 276 (quoting Pueschel v. United States, 369
F.3d 345, 354–55 (4th Cir. 2004)). If the three formal elements are satisfied, “two practical
considerations should be taken into account.” Grausz v. Englander, 321 F.3d 467, 473 (4th
Cir. 2003). “First, we consider whether the party or its privy knew or should have known
of its claims at the time of the first action”; and second, “whether the court that ruled in the
first suit was an effective forum to litigate the relevant claims.” Providence Hall Assocs.,
816 F.3d at 276 (citing Grausz, 321 F.3d at 473–74).
In his appeal, Oudeh argues that the issues in his counterclaim were never actually
litigated. In so arguing, Oudeh confuses issue preclusion—requiring that an issue be
actually litigated—with claim preclusion—requiring only a final judgment on the merits.
See Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955). The court below
properly considered the elements of claim preclusion in dismissing Oudeh’s counterclaims;
accordingly, Oudeh’s challenge is without merit.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable law, and considered the parties’
oral arguments, and we discern no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of
Oudeh’s counterclaims.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
AFFIRMED
* Oudeh notes six issues in his opening brief. Issues I, III, IV, and V specifically
relate to the district court’s dismissal of Oudeh’s counterclaims in this case. Issues II and
VI appear to directly attack the district court’s denial of Oudeh’s motion to set aside
judgment under Rule 60(b) in United States v. Oudeh, No. 18-cv-00009 (E.D.N.C.), which
Oudeh appealed and which this Circuit affirmed in United States v. Oudeh, No. 23-1539,
2025 WL 1430646 (4th Cir. May 19, 2025). Because these issues do not relate to any issue
raised before or decided by the court below, they are not properly before this Court.
Nonetheless, res judicata applies equally to these issues.

-- 4 of 4 --