ANTHONY WEIMER V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL, No. 22-35246 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 5 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY C. WEIMER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-35246 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 9:21-cv-00078-BMM v. MEMORANDUM* MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2023** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Anthony C. Weimer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal claims regarding his exposure to obscene online materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Weimer’s requests for oral argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied. review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton ElectroOptical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Weimer’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Weimer’s claims were raised or could have been raised in his prior federal action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata under federal law); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “imaginative” parties may not “avoid preclusion by attaching a different legal label to an issue that has, or could have, been litigated”). AFFIRMED. 2 22-35246

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.