IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11450
Conference Calendar
MICHAEL D. RODGERS, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DALLAS METROCARE SERVICES INC.; JAN STEVENSON;
ROBERT SPENCER; JEFFREY B. RENNER; JOYCE WHEELER;
RICK MATHEWS; ALL OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS OFFENDERS
PROGRAM STAFF; MARYANNE ROMANO, Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-1165-L
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael D. Rodgers, Sr., appeals from the district court's
order granting summary judgment to the defendants based on res
judicata in his civil rights suit. Rodgers alleged in his suit
that the defendants violated his civil rights, violated his
rights as stated in the Patients Handbook, subjected him to
racial profiling, unlawfully denied him medical services, and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-11450
-2-
discriminated against him because of his medical condition.
Prior to filing his federal action, Rodgers had filed in state
court a nearly identical action against the same defendants, for
whom the state court granted summary judgment.
Afforded liberal construction, Rodgers argues on appeal that
he lacked a fair opportunity to litigate in state court and that
the district court erred in applying res judicata. Under Texas
law, res judicata requires proof of the following elements: 1) a
prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction; 2) identity of parties or those in privity with
them; and 3) a second action based on the same claims that were
raised or could have been raised in the first action. See
Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex.
1996). After a de novo review, we conclude from the record that
res judicata properly applies to this case and that the district
court did not err.
AFFIRMED.