222286P.pdf   06/05/2023  George Par  v.  Wolfe Clinic, P.C.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-2286
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Sherman Act. Plaintiff, an ophthalmologist specializing in 
   vitreoretinal surgery, alleged defendant attempted to monopolize the 
   vitreoretinal care market. The district court dismissed his Sherman Act 
   claim because he did not allege an antitrust injury or state a proper 
   geographic market; the court also declined to exercise supplemental 
   jurisdiction over his state law claims. Held: the complaint failed to 
   state an actual adverse effect on competition and failed to plead a 
   relevant market; as a result, the district court did not err in dismissing 
   the Sherman Act claim; these defects in the complaint could not be cured 
   by additional discovery; the district court did not abuse its discretion 
   by denying plaintiff's post-judgment motion to amend the complaint; the 
   district court did not abuse its discretion by not exercising supplemental 
   jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.