Court Opinion

ID: 9407040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 18:01:47.854618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:35.081497
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 5 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY C. WEIMER,                              No. 22-35246

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 9:21-cv-00078-BMM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation; GOOGLE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                    Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Anthony C. Weimer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging various federal claims regarding his exposure to

obscene online materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Weimer’s requests for oral
argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.
review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-

Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Weimer’s action as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because Weimer’s claims were raised or could have been

raised in his prior federal action between the parties or their privies that resulted in

a final judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata under federal law);

Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064,

1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “imaginative” parties may not “avoid

preclusion by attaching a different legal label to an issue that has, or could have,

been litigated”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-35246