Case Name: Teresa Ward COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant-Appellee; Teresa Ward Cooper, Plaintiff-Appellant v. City of Dallas; Chief of Police David Kunkle, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-19
Citations: 402 F. App'x 891
Docket Number: No. 09-10286
Parties: Teresa Ward COOPER, Plaintiff— Appellant v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant-Appellee. Teresa Ward Cooper, Plaintiff—Appellant v. City of Dallas; Chief of Police David Kunkle, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 891–892

Head Matter:
Teresa Ward COOPER, Plaintiff— Appellant v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant-Appellee. Teresa Ward Cooper, Plaintiff—Appellant v. City of Dallas; Chief of Police David Kunkle, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-10286.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 2010.
Teresa Ward Cooper, Plano, TX, pro se.
Jason D. McClain, Janice Smith Moss, Assistant City Attorneys, Barbara Elaine Rosenberg, Esq., City Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The instant appeal arises from two consolidated federal cases filed by Teresa Ward Cooper seeking employment related relief against the City of Dallas and City officials. On October 15, 2007, the City moved for summary judgment on res judi-cata grounds. The magistrate judge found that a Texas state court had entered final judgment on March 6, 2006, denying Cooper the relief she sought against the City. The magistrate judge held that the state court judgment was a final judgment on the merits, that the defendants in the state court action were identical or in privity with the defendants here, and that Cooper could have raised the claims presented here in that state action. The magistrate judge thus recommended that the City's motion for summary judgment be granted. The trial court adopted the magistrate judge's finding and granted summary judgment to the City on res judicata grounds.
We have reviewed the briefs, relevant portions of the record, including the opinions, the judgments, and the applicable law. We find no reversible error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons provided in the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, as adopted by the district court. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
AFFIRMED.
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.
. Appellant also argues, on appeal, that the City is judicially estopped from raising its res judicata defense. Because judicial estoppel was not properly presented to the magistrate judge, we cannot address it here. Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir.1994).