-
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-4-2005 Bartlebaugh v. Corcoran Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1874 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Bartlebaugh v. Corcoran" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 734. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/734 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. CPS-292 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 05-1874 ________________ LOUIS BARTLEBAUGH, Appellant v. RICHARD CORCORAN ________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00048J) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson ________________ Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 30, 2005 Before: ALITO, MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Filed : August 4, 2005) ________________ OPINION ________________ PER CURIAM Louis Bartlebaugh appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee Richard Corcoran’s motion to dismiss Bartlebaugh’s complaint. Bartlebaugh filed a complaint in state court alleging that Corcoran committed malpractice in Bartlebaugh’s direct appeal from his criminal conviction. Corcoran removed the case to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and Bartlebaugh filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Bartlebaugh’s claims were barred by claim preclusion because he had previously brought the claims in a prior action. Our review of the District Court’s application of res judicata is plenary. Venuto v. Witco Corp.,
117 F.3d 754, 758 (3d Cir. 1997). We agree with the District Court that Bartlebaugh’s current claims are barred because he brought them in a previous action. See Bartlebaugh v. Lazarri, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 04-cv-228J. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 05-1874
Citation Numbers: 140 F. App'x 412
Filed Date: 8/4/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023