Richitt

John Wallace appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

The district court properly granted defendants’ motion to preclude Wallace from re-litigating the truth of patients’ complaints against him because an appropriate administrative entity, the Nevada State Board of Psychological Examiners, already found these complaints to be truthful. Federal courts apply the same preclusive effect to a state proceeding as the state itself would apply. Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 , 104 S.Ct. 892 , 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Nevada has adopted the doctrine of administrative res judicata, including claim and issue preclusion. Britton v. City of North Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 690 , 799 P.2d 568, 569 (1990). Under Nevada law, issue preclusion is appropriate where: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical to the issue presented in the action in question; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the judgment is asserted was a party, or in privity with a party to the…