United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1642

___________________________

Aaron Olson

Plaintiff – Appellant

v.

Christopher Kopel; Austin Peterson; Siv Yurichuk; Karl Schreck; Todd

McMurray; Ron Rollins; Steven Pavoni; Chisago County; Washington County; City of Fridley; City of Stillwater

Defendants – Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis

____________

?Submitted: January 19, 2017

Filed: January 24, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

Summary:?Civil case – Civil rights. the district court did not err in determining plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata, and the dismissal order is affirmed without further comment.


PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 action, Aaron Olson appeals after the district court[1]dismissed his second amended complaint, with prejudice, and denied him leave to amend his complaint further.

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Olson?s claims were barred by res judicata, see Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata); Ripplin Shoals Land Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng?rs, 440 F.3d 1038, 1042 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing application of doctrine of res judicata), and that, in any event, his complaint failed to state a claim, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed, but they must still contain sufficient facts to support claims advanced; de novo review of dismissal based on insufficient factual allegations to support claims advanced).? We further conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in denying Olson leave to amend his complaint further.? See Joshi v. St. Luke?s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing denial of motion to amend complaint for abuse of discretion; reviewing de novo underlying legal conclusion as to whether proposed amendment would have been futile; district court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile).

Accordingly, we affirm.? See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

[1] The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-