Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roy BALES, Sr., Appellant, v. John F. AULT; Russell Behrends; Jim Slaw; Katherine Lint; Marvin Kent; Phil Kauder; Don Folkerts; Mary Rose; Lisa M. Krigsten; Robert Raymond Butler; and Thomas J. Miller, Appellees.
    No. 03-2756.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
    Roy Bales, Sr., pro se, Anamosa, IA, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Roy Bales, Sr., appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of Bales’s civil action, and the district court’s denial of Bales’s motions for reconsideration. We conclude most of Bales’s claims are res-judicata barred, because a final judgment on the merits was rendered in an earlier federal case involving the same parties and these same claims. See Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 F.3d 1005, 1014 (8th Cir.2002) (elements of res judicata). We further conclude any new allegations made by Bales in his complaint fail to state claims on which relief could be granted. See Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir.2003) (this court may affirm for any reason supported by record). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration, whether brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Perkins v. U S West Communications, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions); Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) motions). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). 
      
       The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.