Case Name: David H. BLUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-01
Citations: 584 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 13-35005
Parties: David H. BLUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
David H. BLUNT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-35005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed Aug. 1, 2014.
David H. Blunt, pro se.
Kenneth Scott Montoya, Esquire, City of Salem Legal Department, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David H. Blunt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant demolished his house in violation of federal law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
Dismissal of Blunt s action was proper because it is barred by a prior state court decision under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (9th Cir.1998) (setting forth Oregon's issue preclusion doctrine and explaining that "[fjederal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they would be given by courts of that state"); Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852, 861-62 (9th Cir.1995) (setting forth Oregon's claim preclusion doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.