United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60672

Summary Calendar

Stonewater Adolescent Recovery Center, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Lafayette County Board of Supervisors, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19-CV-231

Before Clement, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Stonewater Adolescent Recovery Center (Stonewater) appeals the 

district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Lafayette 

County Board of Supervisors (Lafayette County) and dismissing its claims 

under the ADA and the FHA with prejudice. The district court held that res 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 13, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60672 Document: 00516318184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 21-60672

2

judicata barred Stonewater’s ADA and FHA claims because they were part 

of the same transaction as Stonewater’s claims in a prior state court suit that 

was between the same parties and that ended in a final judgment on the 

merits. We agree and AFFIRM.

A.

Stonewater Adolescent Recovery Center is a residential rehabilitation 

center for youth struggling with substance use and mental health disorders in 

Lafayette County, Mississippi. After Lafayette County denied Stonewater’s 

request for permission to expand its drug treatment facility to accommodate 

more patients, Stonewater did two things: (1) appealed the decision in state 

court, claiming that Lafayette County’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, 

clearly erroneous, unlawful, and in violation of the ADA and the FHA; and 

(2) filed a federal complaint, alleging the decision violated the ADA and the 

FHA. The federal district court abstained under Colorado River Water 

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), and stayed the 

federal action pending resolution of the state court appeal.

After the federal district court stayed the proceeding, Stonewater 

attempted to dismiss its state court appeal, which Lafayette County opposed 

and the state court denied. It also attempted to sever and voluntarily dismiss 

its ADA and FHA claims, which Lafayette County again opposed and the 

state court again denied. After a hearing, the state court ruled in Lafayette 

County’s favor, holding that its decision was “based on substantial evidence, 

and [was] fairly debatable and not arbitrary or capricious, and that 

Stonewater [had] not otherwise shown in the record that the decisions 

violated its constitutional or statutory rights.” The state court stated 

expressly that in reaching its decision, it did not consider any federal rules or 

regulations.

Case: 21-60672 Document: 00516318184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 21-60672

3

Once Stonewater’s time to appeal or seek reconsideration of the state 

court’s final order passed, the federal district court lifted the stay and 

Lafayette County moved for summary judgment. The district court granted 

the motion, holding that the state court action was res judicata as to 

Stonewater’s ADA and FHA claims. It then dismissed Stonewater’s ADA 

and FHA claims with prejudice. Stonewater timely appealed.

B.

In Mississippi, res judicata bars, in a subsequent suit involving the 

same parties or their privies, “all claims that were or reasonably may have 

been brought in the original action.” Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So. 2d 793, 794 (Miss. 

1990). There are five elements that must be present for res judicata to apply: 

“(1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of 

action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; [] (4) identity of the 

quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made[;]” and (5) 

“the prior judgment must [have been] a final judgment that was adjudicated 

on the merits.” EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Carmichael, 17 So. 3d 1087, 1090 (Miss. 

2009) (citations omitted).

The parties dispute only the second and fifth elements. The second—

identity of the cause of action—concerns whether there is an identity of “the 

underlying facts and circumstances upon which a claim has been brought.” 

EMC, 17 So. 3d at 1090. That is clearly satisfied here, and Stonewater does 

not meaningfully argue to the contrary. Indeed, Stonewater all but concedes 

the existence of the second element in its brief—dedicating just part of one 

paragraph to arguing otherwise.

Stonewater dedicates the balance of its brief to arguing that the fifth 

element was not satisfied because “the state court’s decision [was] not a final 

judgment on Stonewater’s ADA/FHA claims’ merits.” But this argument 

is doomed from the outset, as it confuses claim preclusion with issue 

Case: 21-60672 Document: 00516318184 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 21-60672

4

preclusion. While issue preclusion asks whether certain issues in a prior 

action were actually litigated, determined, and essential to the judgment, 

claim preclusion does not. See Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Assocs., Inc., 422 

So. 2d 749, 751 (Miss. 1982). Rather, claim preclusion focuses on whether 

the prior action ended in a final adjudication on the merits. EMC, 17 So. 3d 

at 1090. It did.

Moreover, it is plain from the record that Stonewater had an 

opportunity to litigate its ADA and FHA claims in state court but did not. At 

the state court hearing, the judge asked: [D]oes the county object to me 

hearing the federal claims?” Despite Lafayette County responding that it did 

not object, Stonewater made the deliberate decision not to prosecute its ADA 

and FHA claims. It cannot now litigate them in a federal forum.

* * *

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-60672 Document: 00516318184 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2022