Vara Birapaka v. U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Full text

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2131 ___________________________

Vara Birapaka

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

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Submitted: February 20, 2019 Filed: February 28, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________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-