Prokop v. Nebraska Accountability & Disclosure Commission

437 F. App'x 524

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Prokop brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising multiple claims in connection with a state election and a later state proceeding against him to collect late fees. The District Court 1 dismissed the complaint, and Prokop appeals. After careful de novo review, see Detroit Gen. Ret. Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 621 F.3d 800, 804-05 (8th Cir.2010), we conclude that dismissal was proper because (1) some of the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feld-m an 2 doctrine and the District Court properly refrained from interfering in pending state-court garnishment proceedings, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); (2) the remaining allegations fail to state a claim or are time-barred; and (3) Prokop’s arguments for judicial recusal were not presented below, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider claims first raised on appeal), and in any event, appear meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1 . The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

2 . Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).