Vara Birapaka v. U.S. Army Research Laboratory ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-2131
    ___________________________
    Vara Birapaka
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    U.S. Army Research Laboratory; The Regents of the University of California; The
    Regents of the University of California and Griffith University; University of PA;
    Wayne State University; Purdue University; The Trustees of Indiana University;
    University of Central Florida; East Central University; Oregon State University;
    Consortium for Public Education; Greater Muskegon Catholic Schools; Mona
    Shores Public Schools; BD of Trust/Comm. Col. District 535; Rutgers University;
    University of Texas; Dartmouth College; Dept of Material Science and
    Engineering; Rutgers University/NASA; University of Utah; University of Texas;
    Wright-Patterson A.F. Base; Max Plank Institute; Germany; McGill University/US
    Army; The University of Texas Health Science Center; San Antonio; University of
    Illinois; Chicago; University of California-Berkeley; University of
    Texas-Arlington; University of Texas-Austin; Bilkeni University of Turkey;
    Qualcomm, Inc.; University of Melbourne; University of California-San Diego;
    US Navy Research Laboratory; University of Southern California; Guangzhou
    Zheng; LEO Pharma, Inc.; Malcolm Fraser; University of Notre Dame; Randy
    Lewis; University of Wyoming; Kim Thompson; Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.;
    Lincoln Laboratory; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; D-Wave Corporation;
    International Business Machine, Inc.; Lockheed Martin; General Dynamics;
    Alphabet; Raytheon; Dept. of Justice Legal Counsel; Dept. of Defense General
    Counsel; Director, DIA ASD(P); Minnesota Dept. of Human Services; Central
    Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Security
    Administration; Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota; Lori Swanson, Minnesota
    Attorney General; City of Eagan; David Wade; City of Bloomington; Vicki S.
    Thompson; Seungdo Kim
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: February 20, 2019
    Filed: February 28, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Vara Birapaka appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his claims
    against all defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’
    arguments on appeal, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal, see Montin v.
    Moore, 
    846 F.3d 289
    , 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) dismissal is reviewed
    de novo), or in its denial of his motion for reconsideration, see Preston v. City of
    Pleasant Hill, 
    642 F.3d 646
    , 652 (8th Cir. 2011) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion is
    reviewed for abuse of discretion); Nelson v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 
    702 F.3d 1038
    , 1043 (8th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of
    discretion).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2131

Filed Date: 2/28/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021