There has been many a Masters and Doctoral thesis written on this. British common law dealt with subjects, property of a state and their relationship with that states monarch or king/queen. The US constitution deals with the relationship between free men without any King who we where throwing under a bus at gun point at that time. The only commonality of British common law and US law is both are written in English. The founding fathers pointedly did not use British common law in writing the Constitution.
No, the Founders explicitly used notions from common law as givens in writing the Constitution: habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence,... The whole notion of stare decisis was inherited from British law, and none of the Founders raised objection to it when American courts applied it in their days.
In the absence of American precedents, American courts often used British precedents, especially in the early days, though there were, even then, some who took exception. Indeed, many of the several states explicitly implemented a retention of British law, common law included, by “reception statutes”, excluding only provisions repugnant to laws enacted by their legislatures.
The American Founding was in many ways undertaken to vindicate the traditional rights of Englishmen on behalf of those on this side of the Atlantic, coming eventually to the conclusion that those rights would be more secure in the context of a republic than a monarchy and giving us the Constitution.