
    Louis BARTLEBAUGH, Appellant v. Richard CORCORAN.
    No. 05-1874.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 30, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
    Louis Bartlebaugh, Albion, PA, pro se.
    Dennis J. Clark, Plunkett & Cooney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: ALITO, MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Louis Bartlebaugh appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee Richard Corcoran’s motion to dismiss Bartlebaugh’s complaint. Bartlebaugh filed a complaint in state court alleging that Corcoran committed malpractice in Bartlebaugh’s direct appeal from his criminal conviction. Corcoran removed the case to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and Bartlebaugh filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Bartlebaugh’s claims were barred by claim preclusion because he had previously brought the claims in a prior action. Our review of the District Court’s application of res judicata is plenary. Venuto v. Witco Corp., 117 F.3d 754, 758 (3d Cir.1997). We agree with the District Court that Bartlebaugh’s current claims are barred because he brought them in a previous action. See Bartlebaugh v. Lazarri, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 04-cv-228J.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.  