With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order
C: 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
D: 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
D.