Bradley v. Val-Mejias

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the plaintiff was aware he had been injured, even though he was unaware of the “scientific nature” of his injuries, when he had reason to question his doctor’s diagnosis (quotation omitted)
• finding proposed amendment “futile” because it was “barred by the statute of limitations” and thus “subject to dismissal”
• describing the plaintiffs injury as the fact that the doctor “was not properly treating his condition”
• affirming district court’s denial of motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on ground that its amended claims would be futile due to statute of limitations bar
• affirming district court’s denial of motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on ground that its amended claims would be futile due to statute of limitations bar
• “A proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).