Perry v. Boston Scientific Family et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. See Order for details.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on January 4, 2017. (CLG) (cc: Perry) Modified on 1/4/2017 (AKL).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 16‐CV‐0137 (PJS/HB)
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC FAMILY;
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION;
STEIN, M.D., Chief Medical Officer;
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CARDIAC
RHYTHM MANAGEMENT et al.; and
any future and any past John Doe and
Jane Doe defendants in their official and
individual capacities or job positions,
Donald Perry, pro se.
Joseph M. Price, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, for defendants.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Donald Perry’s objection to the
December 1, 2016 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Hildy
Bowbeer.1 Judge Bowbeer recommends granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and
Perry styled his submission as “Belated Motion” and as “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion for Clarification of Report and Recommendation on
Established Federal Laws.” ECF No. 55. But a review of Perry’s submission makes
clear that it is intended as an objection to the R&R, and the Court treats it as such.
Moreover, the Court treats the objection as timely, although it is not clear that Perry met
denying several of Perry’s motions. See ECF No. 53. The Court has conducted a de
novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review,
the Court agrees with Judge Bowbeer’s careful and thorough analysis, adopts the R&R,
and dismisses Perry’s claims with prejudice because they are barred by the doctrine of
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Clarification of
Report and Recommendation on Established Federal Laws” [ECF No. 55]
The Report and Recommendation of December 1, 2016 [ECF No. 53] is
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND
ON THE MERITS.
Plaintiff’s “Timely Notice and Motions’ for Properly Defaults Judgments’
at This Time Only Against Boston Scientific Family and Boston Scientific
the deadline for objecting to the R&R.
Cardiac Rhythm Management, for Failing To Files Their Defendants’
Notice of Removal in This Federal and Also Within the State Courts” [ECF
No. 29] is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s “Emergency Petition for Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” [ECF No. 39] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s “Notice and Motion for This Federal Court To Take Judicial
Notice and To Adopts the Plaintiff’s Refutes, to Defendants’ Four‐Years
Statute of Limitation for the Plaintiff’s to File Lawsuit against above
Defendants” [ECF No. 43] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s “Requests to Order the above Named Defendants’ To Pays the
Expenses to a Independent Private Eye‐Specialists’ to Proper Conducts an
Physically Eyes Examination on the Plaintiff’s Weaked Eyes?” [ECF
No. 44] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s motion to “Stay This Action Pending the Resolution of His
‘Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing His Interlocutory Appeals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and all Other U.S. Appeals Courts’” [ECF
No. 46] is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery” [ECF No. 52] is
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 4, 2017
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?