[UNPUBLISHED]

Vincent M. Ventimiglia appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that all of Ventimiglia’s claims — other than his claim against Officer Angela Candler — are *604 barred by collateral estoppel because he unsuccessfully raised the issues underlying these claims during his state criminal appeal. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103-05, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (collateral estoppel may apply when § 1983 plaintiff attempts to relitigate in federal court issues decided against him in state criminal proceedings; federal court gives state court judgment same preclusive effect it would be given under law of state where it was rendered); Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529, 532-33 (Mo. 1999) (summarizing doctrine of collateral estoppel). As to Ventimiglia’s remaining claim that Officer Candler falsified information to establish probable cause for his arrest, we conclude that his conviction precludes such a claim. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 170 (8th Cir. 1995) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by record); Malady v. Crunk, 902 F.2d 10, 11-12 (8th Cir. 1990) (conviction for offense for which officer arrested plaintiff bars § 1983 action alleging absence of probable cause). Ventimiglia’s remaining arguments are meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ventimiglia’s pending motions.