                 United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 17-2487
                         ___________________________

                                    Antonio Ausler

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

Wes Bradford; CPL. James Collins; State of Arkansas; Timothy Bunch; Lee Short;
      Dan (Charles) Hancock; Ronald Davis, Jr.; Honorable John Putman

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: January 3, 2018
                              Filed: January 10, 2018
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Antonio Ausler appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his civil
rights action, brought under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully reviewed

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was
proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d
1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal
reviewed de novo). Further, we find that Ausler’s argument on appeal--that, because
he was not incarcerated when he filed his complaint, his claims for damages were not
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)--is precluded by circuit
precedent. See Newmy v. Johnson, 758 F.3d 1008, 1011-12 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting
that Heck’s favorable-termination rule applies when § 1983 plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated). Accordingly, we deny Ausler’s motion for oral argument, and we
affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________




                                        -2-
