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capacity; Willis Swearingin, former * [UNPUBLISHED]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 Western

1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Robert B. DePugh appeals the District Court&s adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in his civil rights action and the denial of his motion for return of property.

After a careful review of the record and the parties& submissions on appeal, we affirm.

DePugh brought this action against Carroll County, Missouri, deputy sheriffs

John Lightfoot and Terry Endicott, and former sheriff Willis Swearingin, alleging they

violated his 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 District Court granted

appellees summary judgment and denied DePugh&s motion for return of property. 

After de novo review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Endicott and

Lightfoot because DePugh did not show Endicott and Lightfoot did anything other than

observe Swearingin open and search the briefcase at the police station. See Creamer

v. Porter, 754 F.2d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1985) (where officer did not personally seize

items or help in their removal from premises he was properly dismissed from 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit because he was only “bystander”). With regard to Swearingin, we agree

with appellees that either the issues underlying DePugh&s claims were litigated in prior

lawsuits 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 collateral

estoppel), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1427 (1997); Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742

(8th Cir.) (listing elements of res judicata), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 823 (1990); Poe v.

John Deere Co., 695 F.2d 1103, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 1982) (explaining principles of res

judicata; noting that final judgment on merits precludes relitigation of claim on any

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 conspiracy allegation must plead specific facts suggesting mutual

understanding among conspirators). We also believe that the District Court did not err

in denying DePugh&s motion to reconsider. 

Finally, we 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.