Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00763-BAJ-EWD
10-01-2020
FRANCIS BROWN v. DARRYL VANNOY
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses pro se Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), seeking relief for alleged violations of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment based on various instances of conduct that he asserts constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
The Report and Recommendation noted that because Plaintiff does not make any allegation that Defendant was personally involved in the alleged conduct nor that he created policies which facilitated the conduct, Defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, even had Plaintiff filed his Complaint against a proper defendant, his claims should still be dismissed as they fail to meet the pleading standards required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that, to the extent there are any state law claims within the complaint, the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims and that the case be dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6). Plaintiff correctly notes that the court may only decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. He then argues that his First Amendment claims are not state law claims and should not be dismissed. (Doc. 6 at 3). He fails to note the crux of the Magistrate Judge's conclusion, that Plaintiff is suing the incorrect Defendant. Further, his retaliation claims are not in his Complaint, but rather in a separate notice of judicial adjudication, and therefore are not the subject of this order. (Doc. 4)
Having independently considered the underlying Complaint, Objection, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion herein.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
A separate judgment will be issued.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 1ST day of October, 2020
/s/ _________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA