
    Roland S. WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis BOYLES, Agent, Berryton, Kansas; Shawnee County Commissioners; Encenio Sapata; James Welch; Carla Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas; Edsall’s Auto Service; E.J. Edsall’s Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-3050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2002.
    Before EBEL, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Roland S. Weaver appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint for lack of jurisdiction— as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata — failure to state a claim, and frivolousness, and denying him leave to file an amended complaint. The parties are familiar with the underlying facts; we need not repeat them here. Suffice it to say, all of Mr. Weaver’s allegations and legal arguments arise out of the seizure of his vehicles. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s rulings de novo. See Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir.1999) (failure to state a claim); ANR Pipeline Co. v. Lafaver, 150 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir.1998) (subject matter jurisdiction). We construe appellant’s pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

On appeal, Mr. Weaver alleges wrongful taking, false arrest, conspiracy, selective prosecution, due process violations, and undefined RICO claims. All of these claims were decided — or could have been decided had they been asserted — in his previous state lawsuits. His legal arguments challenging the district court’s rulings lack merit. After careful review of the entire record on appeal in light of appellant’s arguments and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons contained in the district court’s thorough Memorandum and Order filed February 21, 2001, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs motions for leave to file an appendix on appeal and to remand this case to the district court are DENIED. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
     