WILLIAMS v. BAPTIST HEALTH II (2019)

[Unpublished]

Victor Williams, M.D., filed this action against a medical center, six of its employees, a surgical clinic, two members of the Arkansas State Medical Board, and two of the Medical Board’s consulting physicians alleging a conspiracy to revoke his medical license in violation of state law and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983. Williams appeals the district court’s ¹ dismissal of his claims against numerous defendants, and grant of summary judgment against the remaining defendants. After careful de novo review, see Marsh v. Phelps Cty., 902 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment); Smith v. Johnson, 779 F.3d 867, 870 (8th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata), we affirm.

We agree with the district court that Williams’s claims against several defendants were barred by res judicata. See Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc., 831 F.3d 1009, 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) (federal suit was barred because, under state law, prior judgment precluded claims that could have been raised in prior actions); Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358, 373 S.W.3d 269, 278 (2010) (when case is based on same events as first lawsuit, res judicata applies even if second lawsuit raises new legal issues and seeks additional remedies). We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants, as those claims were barred by absolute quasi-judicial or statutory immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 17-80-103(West 2018) (amended 2019) (no individual acting on behalf of medical board shall be liable for action taken or recommendation made within scope of board’s functions); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (extending absolute judicial immunity to witnesses); Buser v. Raymond, 476 F.3d 565, 570-71 (8th Cir. 2007) (state medical board member had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for performing judicial functions). We find no error in the district court’s summary denial of Williams’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) motion. See Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.