Opinion
No. 3:14 CV 2038
04-28-2017
CRAIG C. LADYMAN, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS MEADE, et al., Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
In this action plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman ("Ladyman"), who is proceeding pro se, alleges various violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle, his arrest, and criminal prosecution. He names as defendants the Indiana State Police troopers ("ISP troopers") who stopped him and arrested him, and officials involved with his prosecution in Elkhart, Indiana: the deputy prosecutor, a judge, a magistrate, and a court reporter. The parties previously moved to dismiss the complaint. (DE ## 10, 12.) Those motions were granted in part and denied in part. (DE # 20.)
The claims against the deputy prosecutor, judge and magistrate were dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 9.) The claims against the court reporter were dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Id.) The ISP troopers' motion to dismiss was denied, but the court, sua sponte, raised the issue of res judicata and ordered plaintiff to file a responsive memorandum addressing why his claims against the ISP troopers are not precluded. (Id.) Plaintiff was notified that failure to file such a memorandum would result in the dismissal of his claims against the ISP troopers without further notice. (Id.)
In response plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all defendants. (DE # 25.) Plaintiff did not file a memorandum or otherwise address the applicability of res judicata to his claims against the ISP troopers. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the court's previous order (DE # 20), the court GRANTS its own sua sponte motion to dismiss the claims against the ISP troopers. The claims against Nicholas Meade, Ted Bohner and Arthur Smith are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Date: April 28, 2017
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT