[Unpublished]
Corey Spector appeals the district courts
1
dismissal of his action. He argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his wrongful foreclosure claim, and erred by not granting him leave to amend his complaint. Upon careful de novo review, see Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review), we affirm. We find that Spectors wrongful foreclosure claim was barred by res judicata, as he previously litigated the same claim in state court, and the same parties or their privies were involved in the state court proceedings. See Brown v. Kan. City Live, LLC, 931 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements of res judicata under Missouri law); Kesterson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Mo. 2008) (en banc) (where evidentiary details needed to prove claims were different, but crux of inquiry was same, res judicata applied); Meadowfresh Sols. USA, LLC v. Maple Grove Farms, LLC, 606 S.W.3d 193, 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020) (assignee was in privity with assignor); Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 539 S.W.3d 879, 901 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (attorney appointed by bank for foreclosure was in privity with bank). We also find that the district court did not err in failing to grant Spector leave to amend his complaint. See Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985) (no abuse of discretion in failing to grant leave to amend where appellant merely concluded response to motion to dismiss with request for leave to amend, and did not offer proposed complaint or even substance of proposed amendment to court).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.