Josh Patton v. City of Hapeville, Georgia ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-14672 January 13, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-03437-CV-RWS-1
JOSH PATTON,
d.b.a. Central Station,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HAPEVILLE, GEORGIA,
a Municipal Corporation,
RUTH BARR, in her official
capacity as Alderman of the City of
Hapeville, Georgia, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
(January 13, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Josh Patton, individually and d/b/a Central Station (“Patton),
appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City of
Hapeville and various city officials, dismissing his claims for racial
discrimination, violations of the United States Constitution, and violations of the
Georgia Constitution. The district court determined that Patton’s claims were
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Res judicata is a legal determination that we review de novo. Jang v.
United Technologies Corp., 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000). An action is
barred by prior litigation if “all four of the following elements are present: (1)
there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision is rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are identical
in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases.”
Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999).
Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no
reversible error. Patton previously pursued an action against the City of Hapeville
and others in federal court, a court of competent jurisdiction. His claims arose out
of the same nucleus of operative fact, and were decided on the merits. Patton’s
claims are thus barred by res judicata.
2
At the beginning of his brief, Patton also argues that the district court
improperly “failed to accept as true and view in the light more favorable to the
appellant all facts alleged in appellant’s complaint.” We conclude from the
record, however, that the district court properly held that the defendants’ statement
of undisputed facts filed with their motion for summary judgment were admitted
when Patton failed to respond to the statement of facts in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3