Robert Orlick appeals after the district court 1 dismissed one of his pro se civil actions as barred by res judicata, and dismissed another of his pro se civil actions for failure to state a claim. He has filed an “emergency motion” on appeal. After careful de novo review, see Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011); Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude that Orlick’s complaints were properly dismissed for the reasons explained by the district court. Accord *219 ingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motion is denied.