Opinion
No. 11-1795
11-16-2011
Robert J. Prokop, Appellant, v. Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission; Frank Daley, Executive Director, in his official capacity and individually; Mark Hinman, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Auditor, in his official capacity and individually; William L. Howland, Commission General Counsel, in his official capacity and individually; Neal Danberg, Commission General Counsel, in his official capacity and individually; James Stesjkal, Staff Auditor, in his official capacity and individually; David Hunter, Staff Auditor, in his official capacity and individually; Kimberly Quandt, 2006 Commission Chairman, in her official capacity and individually; John S. McCollister, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Andre Barry, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Marilee Frederickson, Commissioner, in her official capacity and individually; Judy Schweikart, Commissioner, in her official capacity and individually; Paul Hosford, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Gary Rosacker, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; Richard Nelson, Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; John Bergmeyer, former Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; John Gale, Secretary of State and Commissioner, in his official capacity and individually; James McClurg, District V University of Nebraska Regent, in his official capacity and individually; Lori McClurg, former Director of Administrative Services, in her official capacity and individually, Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 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 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-Feldman 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 (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.
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
--------
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.