Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
February 2, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
REEWEN C. DSOUZA-KAMATH,
M.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 09-3126
(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-04031-KGS)
(D. Kan.)
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
We note that the district court may have misspelled the second half of
plaintiffs last name. Plaintiffs counsel refers to plaintiff as simply
Dr. DSouza and we, therefore, do the same.
-2-
Colo. Dept of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052, 1058 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
We review the district courts interpretation of its pretrial order for an abuse of
discretion. Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997)
(Because the district court is in the best position to interpret its pretrial order,
our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion.); see also Koch v. Koch
Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1219 (10th Cir. 2000) (This court reviews for abuse
of discretion a district courts exclusion of evidence or issues from trial on the
basis of a properly-drawn, detailed pretrial order.).
Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to
the above-mentioned standards, we conclude that Dr. DSouza has not shown any
reversible error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court for substantially the same reasons stated in its thorough Memorandum and
Order, DSouza-Klamath, 2009 WL 902377. 2
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Because we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district
court, we will not address CCHCs appellate arguments concerning statutory or
absolute immunity. See Aplee. Br. at 50-56.
-4-