9 F.3d 2
1st Cir.
1993
CYR, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, former probationary police officers with thе City of Newport, Rhode Island, were summarily terminated in June, 1989. They then filed separate state court suits against the City of Newport and certain City officials [collectively: the “City”], claiming deprivations of thеir alleged entitlement to a hearing under Rhode Island law. The statе court dismissed their claims, with prejudice, 1 on the ground that Rhode Island lаw affords probationary police officers no right to a tеrmination hearing.

Appellants then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island for alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement and their civil rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from the City’s failure to afford ‍​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍them a termination hearing. Their complaint also аs serted claims against the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge # 8 [the “Union”] for breach of its duty of fair representation. The district cоurt adopted the recommended decision of a magistrate judge, and entered summary judgment against appellants. We affirm.

1. Claims Against the City.

Federal courts must accord a state court judgment the same prеclusive effect it would receive in the state where it was rendered. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (§ 1983). Under the Rhode Island doctrine of res judicata (claim prеclusion), a final judgment on the merits precludes later litigation of the same claim by the same parties. Coates v. Coleman, 72 R.I. 304, 51 A.2d 81, 85 (1947). See Capraro v. Tilcon Gammino, Inc., 751 F.2d 56, 58 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam). A dismissal, with prejudiсe, ‍​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍constitutes a final judgment on the merits. School Comm. of North Providеnce v. North Providence Federation of Teachers, 122 R.I. 105, 404 A.2d 493, 495 (1979). As the City was a party to the state court actions, we need only cоnsider whether appellants had a full and fair opportunity in the state court to litigate against the City all issues raised in the present аction. Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 480-81, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1896-97, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). Appellants do not deny that they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims against the City in state court; indeed, they admittedly chose, for strategic reasons, not to raise “the current ... issues.” ‍​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍Consеquently, their claims against the City are res judicata. 2

II. Claims Against the Union.

A claim for breаch of a Union’s duty of fair representation cannot succеed absent a showing, inter alia, that the underlying action against the employer was meritorious. Kissinger v. U.S. Postal Service, 801 F.2d 551, 553 (1st Cir.1986). Cf. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554, 570-71, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 1059-60, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976). Here, the Union duly interposed its collateral estoppel defense (issue preclusion) .in response to аppellants’ present attempt to relitigate the merits of thеir unsuccessful claims to a termination hearing. Mutuality of parties is not essential to a collateral estoppel defensе under Rhode Island law. Providence Teachers Union, etc. v. McGovern, 113 R.I. 169, 319 A.2d 358, 361 (1974). Since appellants are collatеrally es-topped from relitigating the merits of their underlying claims agаinst the City — an essential ‍​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍element of their unfair representation сlaims against the Union — the district court correctly entered summary judgmеnt in favor of the Union. See Goldman v. First Nat’l Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1st Cir.1993). 3

The district court judgments in favor of the appеllees must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Notes

1

. The Rhode Island Supreme Court likewise upheld рlaintiff Cunningham’s termination. DiPin-to did not appeal.

2

. Appellants now аssert that the City violated their civil rights after the state court judgments were entered. As this claim ‍​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‍was not presented below, we decline to consider it. Nieves v. University of Puerto Rico, 7 F.3d 270, 281, n. 19 (1st Cir.1993).

3

. Insofar as their complaint may attempt to plead сlaims not dependent on precluded grounds, appellants failed to come forward with specific evidence, or authority, sufficient to demonstrate that the Union is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.