441 U.S. 600, 617, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 1915-16, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979); see also, Great American Fed. Sav. and Loan. Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979). Thus sections 1983 and 1985 are components of a remedial scheme for the same core of rights— those provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, a final judgment on the merits of section 1985 should preclude a claim based on the same operative facts later brought under section 1983. 6 . See, also, King v. Hoover Group, Inc., 958 F.2d 219, 222-23 (8th Cir.1992) (“It is well settled that denial of leave to amend [pleadings] constitutes res judicata on the merits of the claims which were the subject of the proposed amended pleading.”); Qualicare-Walsh, Inc. v. Ward, 947 F.2d 823, 826 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Nilsen v. Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556 (5th
holding that state court chancellors denial of leave to amend and the failure of plaintiffs to appeal the denial resulted in a final judgment on the issue and precluded relitigation of the matter in federal court holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order recognizing that ortiz did not address the issue of whether a denial of a summary judgment motion was appealable after a final judgment if the denial was based on a legal question rather than on the existence of material facts in issue holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons