Case Name: George A. FARBER, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; Rita Arceneaux; Charles Foti, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, Stacy Gaudin, John Bobear, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 326 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 08-30525
Parties: George A. FARBER, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; Rita Arceneaux; Charles Foti, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, Stacy Gaudin, John Bobear, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
George A. FARBER, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; Rita Arceneaux; Charles Foti, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, Stacy Gaudin, John Bobear, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-30525
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 8, 2009.
John Oliver Pieksen, Jr., John Pieksen & Associates LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James K. Irvin, Milling Benson Woodward, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, USDC No. 2:06-CV-3475.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This court, having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and pertinent portions of the record, concludes there is no reversible error in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. With one addition, we therefore AFFIRM the final judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned and thorough opinions dated December 6, 2006, 2006 WL 3531644, and April 18, 2008, 2008 WL 1805481.
We note one point. Appellant now acknowledges that suit against the Board is barred by the Eleventh Amendment but argues that the district court should have permitted him to amend his complaint to include Board Members in their official capacities as defendants. Contrary to Appellant's characterization, the district court did not restrict the amendment to additional claims against Defendant Foti. The order explicitly allowed "claims against the proper defendant(s)." Heedless of this order, the amended complaint did not name Board Members in their official capacities as defendants. Appellant's erroneous belief that the district court's order implicitly prohibited him from doing so does not provide a ground for relief.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.