
    Deborah Ann BUCZEK, Real Party Interest Rule 17a Secured Party Uniform Commercial Code Filing Acknowledgment NY Dept. of State 201405120259837/201405290292729, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gasper A. TIRONE, Co-Trusteesof Gasper A. Tirone and Elaine E. Trust U/A dated February 9, 2011, Elaine E. Tirone, Co-Trustees of Gasper A. Tirone and Elaine E. Trust U/A dated February 9, 2011, Steven W. Wells, Gasper A. Tirone, Trust, dated February 9, 2011, Elaine E. Tirone, Trust, dated February 9, 2011, Garry M. Graber, Jason E. Markel, Michael E. Reyen, Craig T. Lutterbein, Gregory J. Gillette, Defendants-Appellees, American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Scott Janas, John E. Schmidt, Jr., Timothy J. Walker, Private Capacity, William F. Savino, Gilbert Reyes, Private Capacity, Gilbert Reyes, Private Capacity, Stanley Kwieciak, III, Esq., Brian D. Gwitt, Darryl J. Colosi, John Garbo, New York State Tax Department, Mrs. Gribble, Suzanne McFayden, Sam Maneaun, Wells Fargo Bank, Defendants.
    
    16-1670
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    December 22, 2016
    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Debr orah Ann Buczek, pro se, Derby, NY.
    FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Kevin Miles Kearney, Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo, NY.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform with the above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Deborah Ann Buc-zek, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing as res judicata her claims against defendants for allegedly obtaining a foreclosure judgment against her commercial property through fraud and violations of her constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s application of res judicata. Computer As- socs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365, 368 (2d Cir. 1997). When applying the doctrine, “a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); accord O’Connor v. Pierson, 568 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2009). “New York law has adopted a ‘transactional approach’ to [res judicata]. ‘[0]nce a'claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transaction are barred...'" McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Gargiul v. Tompkins, 790 F.2d 265, 269 (2d Cir. 1986); O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 (1981)) (citations omitted).

Here, upon de novo review of the record and the above principles, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Buc-zek’s complaint. We therefore affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned April 25, 2016 decision and order.

We have considered all of Buczek’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  