Josh Patton v. City of Hapeville, Georgia

Eleventh Circuit

Josh Patton v. City of Hapeville, Georgia

162 F. App'x 895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 2006

Docket05-14672; D.C. Docket 03-03437-CV-RWS-1

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 F. App'x 895 (Josh Patton v. City of Hapeville, Georgia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Josh Patton v. City of Hapeville, Georgia, 162 F. App'x 895 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

*896 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

*896 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. App'x 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josh-patton-v-city-of-hapeville-georgia-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack