# Un ited S tate s C our t o f A ppe als Fo r the Eighth Circuit

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ No. 1 8-2423

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Vic tor B erna

rd W ill iam s, M .D.

lll lll lll lll lll lll lll

Plai nti ff - Appe lla nt

v.
Ba pti st H ea lth , doi ng b usi ne ss a s B ap tis t He al th M ed ic al Ce nte r; Dou gla s W ee ks, Indiv idu al ly

a nd i n hi s Offic ia l C ap ac ity a s Sr. Vic e-Pres ide nt a

nd Ad m ini stra tor; Eve ret t Tu ck er, M .D., Ind ivi dua lly a nd i n hi s Offic ia l C ap ac ity a s a Me m be r of the Cre de nti al s C om

m itt ee ; Ti m

Bu rson, M.D. , Indi vid

ua lly , a nd i n hi s Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty a s C hie f of Surge ry

a nd C ha irpe rson o f the Surge ry Co ntrol Co m

m itt ee ; Scot t M arot ti, M.D ., Indi vid

ua lly , a nd i n hi s Offic ia l C ap ac ity a s a Me m be r of the Surgery Co ntrol Co m

m itt ee ; Sus an

Ke at hle y , M. D., Indi vid

ua lly , a nd a s Ch ai rpers on o f the Cre de nti al s C om m itt ee ; C hris Ca

te , M. D., Indi vid

ua lly , a nd a s Ch ai rm an of th e Exe cu tiv e Co m

m itt ee a nd C hie f of Sta ff; Surgic al Cl ini c of C en tra l Arkansa s; J ohn E. He arns be rger, II, M .D., Ind ivi dua lly ; Jo se ph M . B ec k, M .D., Indiv idu al ly ; C ha

rle s M ab ry , M. D., Indi vid ua lly ; Ja m es Co unc e, M.D ., Indi vid ua lly

lll lll lll lll lll lll lll

De fe ndan ts - A

ppe lle es

____ ____ ____ Appe al from

Uni te d Sta te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Ea ste rn Dis tric t of Ark an sa s - Li ttl e Ro ck

____ ____ ____ Subm itt ed : M ay

23, 2019 File d: M ay

29, 2019 [Unpub lis he d]

____ ____ ____ Be fore B ENTON, STRAS, a nd KO BE S, Ci rcui t Ju dge s.

____ ____ ____PER C URIAM

.

Vic tor W ill ia m s, M.D. , file d thi s act io n ag ai nst a m ed ic al ce nte r, six of its

em plo y ee s, a surgi ca l cl ini c, two m em be rs of the Arkansa s Sta te Me dic al Bo ard, an d two of the Me dic al Bo ard’ s co nsul tin g phy sic ia ns al le gin g a co nspi rac y to revo ke his

m ed ic al lic en se in vio la tio n of sta te la w an d 42 U.S.C

. §§ 1981 , 1982 , an d 1983

. W ill am s ap pe al s the dis tric t co urt’ s dis m iss al of his cl ai m s ag ai nst num erous 1 de fend an ts, an d gran t of sum m ary jud gm en t ag ai nst the rem ai nin g de fend an ts. Afte r
ca reful de nov o re vie w, se e Ma rsh v. Phe lps Ct

y ., 90 2 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Ci r. 2018 ) (de novo revi ew of gran t of sum m ary jud gm en t); Sm ith v. John son, 779 F.3d 867, 870 (8th C ir. 20 15) (de nov o re vie w of di sm iss al ba se d on res jud ic at a), w e affirm

.

W e ag ree wit

h the dis trict co urt that W ill iam s’ s cl ai m s ag ai nst se ve ral de fendan ts we re ba

rred by res jud ic at a. See Finst an d v. Be res ford Ba nc orpora tio n, Inc. , 831 F.3d 1009 , 1014 (8th Ci r. 2016 ) (fede ral sui t wa s ba rred be ca use , unde r sta

te la w, prior jud gm en t prec lud ed cl ai m s that co uld ha ve be en r ai se d in prior ac tio ns); Ba pti st Hea lth v. Murphy , 373 S.W .3d 2 69, 2 78 (Ark. 2 010) (whe n c as e is bas ed on
sa m e ev en ts as first la

wsui t, res jud ic at a ap pli es ev en if se co nd la wsui t rai se s ne w le ga l iss ue s an d se ek s addi ti on al r em ed ie s). W e co nc lud e that the dis tric t co urt prope rly gran te d sum

m ary jud gm en t for the rem ai nin g de fend an ts, as tho se cl ai m s we re ba rred by ab sol ute qua si-j udi ci al or sta tut ory im m uni ty

. See Ark. Co de Ann. § 17-80- 103(W es t 2018 ) (am en de d 2019 ) (n o ind ivi dua l ac tin g on be ha lf of m ed ic al boa rd sha ll be lia ble for ac tio n ta ke n or rec om m en da tio n m ad e wit

hin sc ope of boa

rd’ s func tio ns); Bri sc oe v. La Hue , 460 U.S. 325, 345 (1983) (ext en din g ab sol ute jud ic ia l im m uni ty to wit ne sse s); Bu se r v. Ra

y m ond, 476 F.3d 565, 570-71 (8th Ci r. 2007 ) ( state m ed ic al boa rd m em be r ha d ab sol ute qua si-j udi ci al im m uni ty for pe rfo rm i n g j u d i c i a l fu n c t i o n s ). W e find no error in the dis tric t co urt’ s sum m ary de nia l of W ill iam s’ s Fede ral Ru le of

The H o n o r a b l e Ja m es M. Mo od y , Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
-2

-Ci vil Proce dure 59(e ) an d 60(b) m oti on. See Auto Servs

. Co ., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP,

537 F.3d 85 3, 85 7 (8th

Ci r. 2008 ) (abu se of di sc ret ion rev ie w).

Ac co rding ly , we affirm the jud gm en t of the dis tric t co urt. See 8th Ci r. R. 47B

.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __

-3

-