Roger Day v. State of Minnesota

Filing 920091105

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1205 ___________ Roger Day, M.D., * * Appellant, * * United States of America, * * Intervenor, * * v. * * State of Minnesota; Minnesota Board * Appeal from the United States of Medical Practice; Steven J. * District Court for the Altchuler, M.D., PH.D.; Alfred V. * District of Minnesota. Anderson, M.D., D.C.; Hilda * Bettermann; Kelli Johnson; Jerry * [UNPUBLISHED] Kaplan; Ernest W. Lampe, II, M.D.; * Allen Rasmussen; Kris Sanda; Carl S. * Smith, M.D.; Jon V. Thomas, M.D.; * James Langland, M.D.; Barbara * Letourneau, M.D.; Bradley S. * Johnson, M.D.; Rebecca Hafner, * M.D., in their personal capacities and * in their official capacities as members * of the Minnesota Board of Medical * Practice, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: October 22, 2009 Filed: November 5, 2009 ___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Roger J. Day, M.D., appeals the district court's1 judgment dismissing his claims against Minnesota, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, and its members, arising out of their decision not to grant him an unrestricted medical license. Following careful review, we agree with district court that Day's discrimination and due process claims are barred by res judicata, see St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 539 F.3d 809, 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (law of forum that rendered first judgment controls res judicata analysis; Minnesota courts review application of res judicata de novo; setting forth res judicata criteria under Minnesota law), and we find no basis for reversal.2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Day's pending motion for oral argument is denied. ______________________________

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. We decline to address the sovereign immunity issue raised in the intervenor's brief filed by the United States. -22

1