From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartwell v. Bowles

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Dec 15, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5120 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5120.

December 15, 2009


ORDER


SECTION "N"(4)

The court, having considered the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the Motion to Stay of Action (Rec. Doc. No. 6) filed by the plaintiff on December 7, 2009, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Romalis Armond Hartwell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the defendants, Judge Fred S. Bowles, Judge H. Charles Gaudin, Judge Charles Grisbaum, Judge Edward A. Dufrense, Jr., Judge Thomas C. Wicker, Jr., Judge Sol Gothard, Judge James L. Canella, Judge Thomas J. Kliebert, Judge Thomas F. Daley, Judge Susan M. Chehardy, Judge Marion F. Edwards, Judge Clarence E. McManus, Judge Walter J. Rothschild, Clerk of Court Peter J. Fitzgerald, Jerrold Peterson, Kathi Workman, "Tina Doe," "Roz Doe," Cheryl Landrieu, Carol Treuting, Jennifer Cooper, and Leslie Langhetter, each in their individual capacities, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous, for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and otherwise for seeking relief against an immune defendant pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hartwell's § 1983 claims against Judges Bowles, Gaudin, Grisbaum, Dufrense, Wicker, Gothard, Canella, Kliebert, Daley, Chehardy, Edwards, McManus, and Rothschild, and defendants Fitzgerald, Peterson, Workman, "Tina Doe," "Roz Doe," Landrieu, Treuting, Cooper, and Langhetter, each in their official capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under federal law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hartwell's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

New Orleans, Louisiana.


Summaries of

Hartwell v. Bowles

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Dec 15, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5120 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2009)
Case details for

Hartwell v. Bowles

Case Details

Full title:ROMALIS ARMOND HARTWELL v. JUDGE FRED S. BOWLES, ET AL

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Dec 15, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5120 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2009)

Citing Cases

Tucker v. Waffle House, Inc.

Thus, pursuant to 1367(c)(3), to the extent Tucker has raised state law claims, these claims should be…

Martin v. Dufresne

See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994). The instant case is one of several filed in this…