Filed: Nov. 26, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-2415WM _ Mary Anne Poores, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Robert Rubin, in his capacity as * Secretary of the Treasury for the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 5, 1997 Filed: November 26, 1997 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Mary Anne Poores appeals the district court's order di
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-2415WM _ Mary Anne Poores, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Robert Rubin, in his capacity as * Secretary of the Treasury for the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 5, 1997 Filed: November 26, 1997 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Mary Anne Poores appeals the district court's order dis..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 97-2415WM _____________ Mary Anne Poores, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Robert Rubin, in his capacity as * Secretary of the Treasury for the * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee. * _____________ Submitted: November 5, 1997 Filed: November 26, 1997 _____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _____________ PER CURIAM. Mary Anne Poores appeals the district court's order dismissing Poores's employment discrimination action on res judicata grounds. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court's ruling was clearly correct. Contrary to Poores's view, the dismissal of Poores's earlier action for failure to comply with the district court's scheduling order was a disposition on the merits, the district court correctly dismissed the same claims that Poores presented in her earlier action, and res judicata also bars Poores's newly asserted claims because these claims could have been litigated in her earlier action. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
