Louis Bartlebaugh v. RICHARD CORCORAN On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western…

CPS-292 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 05-1874
________________
LOUIS BARTLEBAUGH,
Appellant
v.
RICHARD CORCORAN
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00048J)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 30, 2005
Before: ALITO, MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed : August 4, 2005)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Louis Bartlebaugh appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee Richard
Corcoran’s motion to dismiss Bartlebaugh’s complaint. Bartlebaugh filed a complaint in

-- 1 of 2 --

2
state court alleging that Corcoran committed malpractice in Bartlebaugh’s direct appeal
from his criminal conviction. Corcoran removed the case to the District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court
granted the motion to dismiss, and Bartlebaugh filed a timely notice of appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Bartlebaugh’s
claims were barred by claim preclusion because he had previously brought the claims in a
prior action. Our review of the District Court’s application of res judicata is plenary.
Venuto v. Witco Corp., 117 F.3d 754, 758 (3d Cir. 1997). We agree with the District
Court that Bartlebaugh’s current claims are barred because he brought them in a previous
action. See Bartlebaugh v. Lazarri, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 04-cv-228J.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

-- 2 of 2 --