United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1996 ___________________________ Bret Healy lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant Healy Ranch Partnership lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff v. Supreme Court of South Dakota; Healy Ranch Inc.; Mary Ann Osborne; Barry Healy; Bryce Healy; Albert Steven Fox; Larry Mines; Sheila Mines; Janine M.

Kern; Mark E. Salter; Jon C. Sogn; Patricia J. Devaney; Scott P. Myren; Steven R. Jensen lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________ Submitted: March 27, 2025 Filed: April 3, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Bret Healy appeals after the district court1 dismissed his civil action and imposed sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the dismissal was proper because Claim 1 was barred by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine; Claims 2, 3, and 4 were barred by res judicata; and Claim 5 was barred by judicial immunity. See Dalton v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 695 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); see also Waller v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (affirmance permitted on any grounds supported by record). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Healy. See Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. ______________________________

The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

-2-