Teresa Cooper v. City of Dallas, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-10286 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG Mandate pull date is 12/10/2010 [09-10286]

Teresa Cooper v. City ase: 09-10286 C of Dallas, et al

Document: 00511299272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
November 19, 2010 N o . 09-10286 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

T E R E S A WARD COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant versu s C I T Y OF DALLAS Defendant - Appellee ******************************************** T E R E S A WARD COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant v.

C I T Y OF DALLAS; CHIEF OF POLICE DAVID KUNKLE, in his individual and official capacity Defendants - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 3:04-CV-02407-N

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10286 Document: 00511299272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2010

No. 09-10286 P E R CURIAM:* T h e instant appeal arises from two consolidated federal cases filed by T e r e s a Ward Cooper seeking employment related relief against the City of D a lla s and City officials. On October 15, 2007, the City moved for summary ju d g m e n t on res judicata grounds. The magistrate judge found that a Texas s t a t e court had entered final judgment on March 6, 2006, denying Cooper the r e lie f she sought against the City. The magistrate judge held that the state c o u r t judgment was a final judgment on the merits, that the defendants in the s t a t e court action were identical or in privity with the defendants here, and that C o o p e r could have raised the claims presented here in that state action. The m a g is tr a t e judge thus recommended that the City's motion for summary ju d g m e n t be granted. The trial court adopted the magistrate judge's finding and g r a n t e d summary judgment to the City on res judicata grounds. We have reviewed the briefs, relevant portions of the record, including the o p in io n s , the judgments, and the applicable law. We find no reversible error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons provided in the findings a n d recommendations of the magistrate judge, as adopted by the district court.1 S e e 5TH CIR. R. 47.6. A F F IR M E D .

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Appellant also argues, on appeal, that the City is judicially estopped from raising its res judicata defense. Because judicial estoppel was not properly presented to the magistrate judge, we cannot address it here. Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 1994).
1

*

2