## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4344

___________ Robert B. DePugh, * * Appellant, * * v. * * John Lightfoot, Deputy Sheriff, Carroll * County, Missouri in his official and * Appeal from the United States personal capacity; Terry Endicott, * District Court for the Deputy Sheriff, Carroll County, * Western District of Missouri. Missouri in his official and personal * capacity; Willis Swearingin, former * [UNPUBLISHED] Sheriff, Carroll County, Missouri in * his official and personal capacity, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 1998 Filed: July 6, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Wester n 1 District of Missouri. -2- Robert B. DePugh appeals the District Court & s adverse grant of summary 1 judgment i n his civil rights action and the denial of his motion for return of property

. After a careful r

eview of the record and the parties & submissions on appeal, we affirm. DePugh brought this action against Carroll County, Missouri, deputy sheriff s John Lightfoot and Terry Endicott, and former sheriff Willis Swearingin, alleging they violatedhis civil rights by seizing, and later searching, his briefcase. DePugh alleged numerous claims under the First, Fourth , Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as claims under two federal statutes and a claim for conspiracy. The Dist rict Court granted appellees summary judgment and denied DePugh & s motion for return of property. After de novo review, we af firm the grant of summary judgment to Endicott and Lightfoot because DePugh did not show En dicott and Lightfoot did anything other than observe Swearingin open and search the briefcase at the police station. See Creamer v. Porte r , 754 F.2d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1985) (where officer did not personally seize items or help in their removal from premises he wa s properly dismissed from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because he was only “bystander”). With regard to Swearingin, we agre e with appellees that eit

her the issues underlying DePugh & s claims were litigated in prior la wsuits or the claims should have been litigated in prior lawsuits against Swearingin. See Tyus v. Schoemehl , 93 F.3d 449, 453 (8th Cir. 1996) (elements of collatera l est oppel), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1427 (1997); Lane v. Peterson , 899 F.2d 737, 74 2 (8th Cir.) (listing elements of res judicata), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 823 (1990); Poe v

. Jo hn Deere Co. , 695 F.2d 1103, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 1982) (explaining principles of res ju dicata; noting that final judgment on merits precludes relitigation of claim on an y ground which could have been raised in prior action). DePugh & s conspiracy claim was also properly dismissed. See Duvall v. Sharp , 905 F.2d 1188, 1189 (8th Cir. 1990)-3-

(per curiam) (§ 1983 conspi racy allegation must plead specific facts suggesting mutual understanding among conspirator s). We also believe that the District Court did not err in denying DePugh & s motion to reconsider. Finally, w e conclude that the District Court did not err in denying DePugh & s motion for return of property. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.