Court Opinion

ID: 44477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:23:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.579173
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  This case was brought and settled. The parties accepted the benefits of the release and settlement agreement. With buyer’s
   
   *907
   
  remorse, plaintiff returned to the district court and asked that the case be reopened. The district court found that the plaintiffs case had been fully and finally resolved by settlement. The matter was dismissed and the case closed. No appeal was taken.
 

  Now plaintiff returns to the district court for a third time on the same facts, this time claiming a breach of the settlement agreement, in that she preserved her right to additional lost wages. Defendant, while conceding plaintiff preserved this right, contends that it also preserved its right to accept or reject her claim. Here the defendant claims that it denied her claim, the matter is over and done with, and, as a matter of law, plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrines of
  
   res judicata
  
  or collateral estoppel. We agree.
 

  We have carefully reviewed the record in the case, the settlement agreement, the briefs and the arguments of counsel contained therein. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court based upon the well reasoned twelve-page report and recommendation of the magistrate judge dated May 26, 2006, as adopted by the district court.
 

  AFFIRMED.