Joseph Erickson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action with prejudice. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Erickson’s claims as precluded by a prior state-court judgment of dismissal with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (full faith and credit for state judicial proceedings); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (Congress has specifically required federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever courts of state from which judgment emerged would do so); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Minnesota law); Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004) (setting forth elements of collateral estoppel under Minnesota law); Nelson v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 651 N.W.2d 499, 511 (Minn. 2002) (“[R]es judicata bars not only claims as to matters actually litigated, but also as to every matter that might have been litigated in prior proceeding.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.