Filed: Jul. 01, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2277 _ Arthur McElroy, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen * District of Nebraska. Pharmaceutica, N.V.; Eli Lilly * Pharmaceutical, Co., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: July 1, 2008 Filed: July 1, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arthur McElroy appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedu
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2277 _ Arthur McElroy, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen * District of Nebraska. Pharmaceutica, N.V.; Eli Lilly * Pharmaceutical, Co., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: July 1, 2008 Filed: July 1, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arthur McElroy appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedur..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2277
___________
Arthur McElroy, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen * District of Nebraska.
Pharmaceutica, N.V.; Eli Lilly *
Pharmaceutical, Co., * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: July 1, 2008
Filed: July 1, 2008
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Arthur McElroy appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) dismissal of his pro se products-liability claims against Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V.2 Upon de novo review, see Reis
1
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
2
McElroy’s claim against Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company is not at issue in
this appeal.
v. Walker,
491 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude that dismissal was proper
for the reasons stated by the district court.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and appellees’
pending motion is denied.
______________________________
-2-