22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T418,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. 36-3.24:T445,

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.