Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Terry D. Quattlebaum filed this action— his second—asserting several claims arising out of the sale of his mortgage and foreclosure on his home. The Defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. Quattlebaum sought to amend his complaint, but the district court denied the motions to amend and dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata. Quattleb-aum appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend his complaint as futile. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to amend on futility grounds. United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014). As the district court concluded, res judicata would bar litigation of the claims Quattlebaum sought to add. See Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing elements of res judi-cata). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED