Perkins v. Terrell

Full title: RUDOLPH PERKINS v. TERRY TERRELL, ET AL

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

Date published: Sep 11, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-1906 (W.D. La. Sep. 11, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-1906

09-11-2014

RUDOLPH PERKINS v. TERRY TERRELL, ET AL

JUDGE TRIMBLE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

JUDGMENT

There being no objection to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, these findings and conclusions are accepted. Alternatively, this court concludes that the proposed findings and conclusions are entirely correct. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED THAT the Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 69] be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

1. The motion should be DENIED to the extent that defendants claim new evidence establishes that plaintiff's claims are meritless.



2. The motion should be DENIED to the extent that defendants claim plaintiff cannot establish personal involvement on behalf of defendants Terrell and Granger. However, the motion should be GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims against defendant Calabrese.



3. Finally, the motion should be DENIED to the extent that defendants claim plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.However, the court will issue a separate order that plaintiff file a new ARP. Plaintiff will have 30 days in which to file the new ARP and the matter will be STAYED pending exhaustion of that ARP. Once the ARP has been fully exhausted, the matter may resume upon motion by either party.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, Lake Charles, Louisiana, on this 11^th day of September, 2014

/s/_________

JAMES T. TRIMBLE, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE