Summary Calendar ---------------------- SHESHADRI RAJU, MD v. Cthomas Boylen, Md; University of Southern California

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
---------------------
No. 05-60719
Summary Calendar
----------------------
SHESHADRI RAJU, MD
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
C THOMAS BOYLEN, MD; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Defendants - Appellees
---------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
No. 3:04-CV-809
--------------------------------------------
Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Sheshadri Raju, M.D. appeals the
district court’s judgment which dismissed his claims against
defendant-appellee C. Thomas Boylen, M.D. under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiff
reasserts the arguments he made below to the effect that
defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity for expert

-- 1 of 2 --

2
testimony given by defendant in another case. Specifically, he
argues that defendant should be considered a complaining witness
(and entitled only to qualified immunity) because he was to
receive a contingent fee. He quarrels with the district court’s
reading of history insofar as it relates to the granting of
absolute immunity to witnesses. And he argues from the extremely
limited exceptions to the absolute immunity granted to judges and
prosecutors for similarly limited exceptions for expert
witnesses. Finally, he asks that we certify the question whether
absolute immunity should be granted to expert witnesses to the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. The district court addressed and
disposed of all of these arguments (except the request for
certification) in a careful, thorough and scholarly opinion, and
it would contribute nothing for us to repeat its analysis or
conclusions. The district court got it exactly right. As for
certification, there is no need to certify a question as to which
the indisputably correct answer is at hand.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --