Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 09-7202 SECTION: R.
May 5, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court are James Ormond's prisoner complaint (R. Doc. 1) and his objections (R. Doc. 11) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that the petition be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous (R. Doc. 7). The Court, having reviewed de novo the petition, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the petitioner's objections thereto, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion.
Ormond makes two objections to the Report and Recommendation. First, he appears to suggest that the defendants in this case are not entitled to judicial immunity because they have stepped out of their judicially immunized positions and have violated the law. Ormond, however, has not brought suit against any judicial officers who might be entitled to such immunity. As explained in the Report and Recommendation, this suit is not barred because defendants are protected by judicial immunity. It is barred because the State of Louisiana is immunized from suit by the Eleventh Amendment, and Louisiana state courts are not "persons" for § 1983 purposes. Ormond has provided no reason to doubt these determinations, and his first objection therefore fails.
See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).
Second, Ormond argues that he is entitled to the costs of bringing this action. He provides no authority that would support awarding him costs for an unsuccessful and legally frivolous § 1983 suit. The case he does cite, State v. Cordero, does not stand for this proposition.
993 So. 2d 203 (La. 2008).
Accordingly,
James Ormond's complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana.