Case Name: Gary B. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.; Time Warner Cable, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 14-56297
Parties: Gary B. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.; Time Warner Cable, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 446–446

Head Matter:
Gary B. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.; Time Warner Cable, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56297
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 4, 2016
Gary B. Jefferson, Pro Se
James Bowles, Casey L. Morris, Esquire, Attorney, Hill, Farrer & Burrill, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges,
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gary B. Jefferson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action alleging claims under Title VII and California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo the district court's dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jefferson's action as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata because Jefferson's claims could have been raised in his prior action, which resulted in a final judgment. See id. (stating requirements of res judica-ta under federal law), Contrary to Jefferson's contention, the continuing tort doctrine does not apply to this action.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jefferson's action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant leave to amend).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.