Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03424/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3424

___________

James R. Jones, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

City of Kansas City, Missouri; *

Wayne Cauthen, City Manager of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Kansas City, Missouri, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 22, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James R. Jones, Jr. brought this employment-discrimination action alleging that

the City of Kansas City, Missouri (City) had failed to compensate him at the

appropriate level because of his age. He filed the action after the district court1

dismissed his earlier employment-discrimination suit in which he claimed that, during

the same period, the City had failed to promote him because of his age. See Jones v.

Appellate Case: 04-3424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954769
-2-

City of Kansas City, Mo., Civ. No. 04-310 (W.D. Mo. June 17, 2004) (Jones I). The

City moved to dismiss Jones’s action as precluded by Jones I under the doctrine of

res judicata. The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. Jones appeals.

We review de novo a dismissal on res judicata grounds, see Lundquist v. Rice

Mem’l Hosp., 238 F.3d 975, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2001), and we agree with the district

court’s conclusion that the instant suit is res judicata barred: Jones’s claim that he is

entitled to higher compensation arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as

those at issue in Jones I, see Daley v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 896 (8th Cir.

2005), and could have been raised in Jones I, see Lundquist, 238 F.3d at 977 (8th Cir.

2001). After careful consideration, we also conclude that Jones’s other arguments do

not provide any basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954769