United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3176

___________________________

Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Lori Swanson, Former Minnesota Attorney General, in individual capacity; Adam

Kujawa, Former Minnesota Assistant Attorney General, in individual capacity and

official capacity; Scott Haldeman, Former Minnesota Assistant Attorney General,

in individual capacity and official capacity; Kirsi Poupore, Managing Attorney,

Minnesota Attorney General, in individual capacity and official capacity; Adam

Kohnstamm, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General; Christopher J. Florey, Former

Minnesota Assistant Attorney General; Alexandria Kieley (Mountain), Former

Investigator with Minnesota Attorney General; Keith M. Ellison, Minnesota

Attorney General in official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: June 3, 2020

Filed: June 8, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________
PER CURIAM.

Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged he was improperly included as a

defendant in the criminal case against his business. Having jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After de novo review, this court concludes that the district court properly

dismissed the complaint as Dahir failed to state any claim upon which relief may be

granted. See Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of

review); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court

may affirm on any basis supported by record). The criminal complaints plainly show

that Dahir was not charged with any offense, was not a party to the criminal case, and

was not convicted of any crime. The Minnesota appellate court had already

determined that Dahir was not a party to the criminal proceeding such that he was

precluded from litigating that issue in this action. See State v. Twin Cities Care

Servs., No. A17-2070, 2018 WL 3614156, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. July 30, 2018);

State v. Lemmer, 736 N.W.2d 650, 659 (Minn. 2007) (collateral estoppel precludes

issue where it was identical to one resolved in prior adjudication, there was a final

decision on merits, estopped party was a party or in privity with party, and had full

and fair opportunity to be heard).

This court finds that neither the district court nor the magistrate plainly erred

by failing to recuse themselves sua sponte based on unfounded assertions of

favoritism, purported animus, adverse rulings, or speculative and conclusory

allegations of potential conflicts of interest. See Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co.,

1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota, partially adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Steven E. Rau, late a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

-2-
323 F.3d 661, 663 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing recusal claims first raised on appeal for

plain error); United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 858 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellant

who did not move for recusal during trial essentially argued that court erred by not

recusing sua sponte; this court has never found plain error in failure to recuse sua

sponte); United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530, 537 (8th Cir. 2010) (judge is presumed

impartial; party seeking disqualification bears substantial burden of proof).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-