From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Day v. Minnesota

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 5, 2009
354 F.3d 272 (8th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-1205.

Submitted: October 22, 2009.

Filed: November 5, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


Roger J. Day, M.D., appeals the district court's 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. 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.


Summaries of

Day v. Minnesota

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Nov 5, 2009
354 F.3d 272 (8th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Day v. Minnesota

Case Details

Full title:Roger DAY, M.D., Appellant, United States of America, Intervenor, v. State…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Nov 5, 2009

Citations

354 F.3d 272 (8th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Wong v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.

Because the state agency's decision was not final in Wong's case, we hold that the district court erred by…