TIECO v. USX CORP., 322 Fed.Appx. 808 (11th Cir. 2009)

TIECO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USX CORPORATION, a corporation, Robert E. Hilton, James B. Wager, individually and in his official capacity as the former Audit Manager of the Division of USX Corporation, Kenneth Falls, individually and in his official capacity as Tractor Shop Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-16203 Non-Argument Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 7, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

J. Mark White, Linda G. Flippo, William M. Bowen, Jr., Andrew C. Allen, White,

Page 809

Arnold, Andrews Dowd, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

June Ann Sauntry, John J. Dalton, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, John A. Earnhardt, H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Maynard, Cooper Gale, P.C., Jere F. White, Jr., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot, Franklin White, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 01-01372-CV-2-SLB-RRA.

Before BIRCH, HULL, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the district court’s dismissal of this action after entry of judgment on the pleadings for defendant, USX Corporation. The district court entered this judgment after review of the underlying complaint, concluding that plaintiff seeks in this action to relitigate issues already decided against plaintiff on appeal to this court in an earlier action, and reaffirmed by this court in its affirmation of the denial of plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for a new trial. The district court in this case concluded that the issues raised here were either brought in the previous case or could have been brought therein.[1] Accordingly, applying the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the district court dismissed this action. Finding no error in this disposition of the case, we

AFFIRM.

[1] To the extent that plaintiff’s complaint alleges a new claim for the independent tort of spoliation, the district court correctly concluded that Alabama law does not recognize that claim as asserted here.