Stephen Carlson brought this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In *837 earlier proceedings, the district court 1 dismissed the action, and this court affirmed. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted Carlson’s petition for a writ of certiorari and directed reconsideration in light of an intervening decision that the Court had rendered. This court then remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court dismissed the action on narrower grounds, and Carlson now appeals that dismissal, as well as the district court’s denial of a post-judgment motion.

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Carlson’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action based on the doctrine of res judicata. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 533 F.3d 634, 639 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of dismissal on grounds of res judicata). Further, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlson’s post-judgment motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dish, 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.