Brian P. Crocker v. Jon Wetlaufer , 156 F. App'x 872 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-4036
    ___________
    Brian P. Crocker,                     *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    John Wetlaufer, employed as State of * Southern District of Iowa.
    Iowa Revenue Agent; Norine E.         *
    Canney, owner of Shamrock             * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Construction Co.,                     *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 6, 2005
    Filed: December 8, 2005
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Brian P. Crocker appeals from orders of the district court1 (1) dismissing his 42
    U.S.C. § 1983 action against John Wetlaufer and Norine Canney, and (2) denying his
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) post-judgment motion to amend or enlarge the
    district court’s findings. The district court’s orders were decided on grounds that
    1
    The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    Crocker received a full and fair opportunity to litigate in garnishment proceedings in
    Iowa state court in 2002, and res judicata bars issues that were or could have been
    asserted in those proceedings, including those being asserted in the case at bar. We
    note that, in a 2003 state-court action that Crocker brought against Canney, the Iowa
    courts precluded him from relitigating similar issues on the ground that they could
    have been asserted in the prior garnishment proceedings. We therefore agree with the
    district court’s reasoning and conclusions in the present case. See Allen v. McCurry,
    
    449 U.S. 90
    , 96, 104 (1980) (federal courts afford state-court judgments preclusive
    effect in § 1983 cases whenever the state courts themselves would do so, provided the
    adjudicating court acted within its proper jurisdiction and the parties had a full and fair
    opportunity to litigate the federal claim). The orders of the district court are affirmed.
    See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4036

Citation Numbers: 156 F. App'x 872

Judges: Melloy, Magill, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/8/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024