United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60866
Summary Calendar
HATTIE MOORE
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JONES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:05-CV-2200
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hattie Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing her complaint alleging racial discrimination and personal injury
resulting from her termination of employment and subsequent arrest on May 27,
2003. Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court concluded that Moore’ suit was barred by the doctrine
of res judicata, which bars the litigation of claims that were previously litigated
or should have been raised in an earlier suit. Test Masters Educational Servs.,
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-60866
Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). Moore’s brief fails to address the
res judicata determination, which could constitute abandonment of the sole issue
on appeal. See Matchett v. Dretke, 380 F.3d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2004). However,
because the appellee has addressed res judicata fully and does not assert
prejudice resulting from Moore’s inadequate briefing, and in consideration of
Moore’s pro se status, we will review the district court’s res judicata ruling. See
Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988).
The four elements of res judicata are: (1) the parties are identical or in
privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on
the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both
actions. Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 571. These elements are easily satisfied here.
Moore’s prior suit alleged discrimination arising out of the same May 27, 2003,
termination and arrest that forms the bases of her claims in the current suit.
In both suits, she sued the Jones County School District and Superintendent
Thomas Prine. The prior suit resulted in a judgment on the merits with
prejudice, and that judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the instant suit is
barred by res judicata.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2