From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olson v. Kopel

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Jan 24, 2017
No. 16-1642 (8th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-1642

01-24-2017

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Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

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

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. --------

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.


Summaries of

Olson v. Kopel

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Jan 24, 2017
No. 16-1642 (8th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017)
Case details for

Olson v. Kopel

Case Details

Full title:Aaron Olson Plaintiff - Appellant v. Christopher Kopel; Austin Peterson…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jan 24, 2017

Citations

No. 16-1642 (8th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017)