From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco v. Walmart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Apr 13, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00839-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 13, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00839-BAJ-RLB

04-13-2021

JAMIE FRANCISCO v. WALMART, ET AL.


RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court are four motions: Defendant Walmart, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim (Doc. 14); Defendant Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC d/b/a Mead Johnson Nutrition Company's ("Mead Johnson") Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 15); Plaintiff's pro se Motion For Preliminary Default Judgment Against Walmart (Doc. 16); and Plaintiff's pro se Motion For Preliminary Default Judgment Against Mead Johnson (Doc. 22). The Magistrate Judge has issued two Reports, which, collectively, recommend that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary default be denied because Defendants each timely filed motions to dismiss, and, further, that Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted because Plaintiff has failed to state an actionable federal claim. (Docs. 21, 23). There is no objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.

Having carefully considered each motion in light of the well-pleaded allegations stated in Plaintiff's pro se complaint, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Reports and ADOPTS them as the Court's opinion in this matter.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Default Against Walmart (Doc. 16) be and is hereby DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Default Against Mead Johnson (Doc. 22) be and is hereby DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Walmart's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) and Mead Johnson's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) be and are hereby each GRANTED IN PART, and that Plaintiff's federal claims against Walmart and Mead Johnson be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, and that Plaintiff's state law claims against Walmart and Mead Johnson be and are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Judgment shall be entered separately.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 13th day of April, 2021

/s/ _________

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

Francisco v. Walmart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Apr 13, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00839-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Francisco v. Walmart

Case Details

Full title:JAMIE FRANCISCO v. WALMART, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Apr 13, 2021

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00839-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 13, 2021)