From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vicks v. Packnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Aug 24, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00556-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Aug. 24, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00556-BAJ-EWD

08-24-2020

ALLEN VICKS v. JAMES PACKNETT, LT., ET AL.


RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Jimmy Smith's and Marcus Jones's Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule 12(B)(6) (Doc. 12), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Since filing his original Complaint, Plaintiff has twice requested leave to file Amended Complaints. (Docs. 15, 19). The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report And Recommendation (Doc. 22) recommending that Plaintiff's requests to file Amended Complaints be denied as futile, that Defendants' Motion be granted and that Plaintiff's federal claims against Smith and Jones be dismissed with prejudice, that Plaintiff's federal claims against a third Defendant, James Packnett, be dismissed with prejudice on the Court's own motion, that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's potential state law claims, that any remaining motions be terminated, and that the case be closed. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (Doc. 23).

Having independently considered Defendants' Motion and related filings—including Plaintiff's Objection—the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 22), and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion herein.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Amended Complaints (Docs. 15, 19) are DENIED as futile.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) filed by Jimmy Smith and Marcus Jones is GRANTED and that Plaintiff's federal claims against Smith and Jones are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's federal claims against James Packnett are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the Court's own motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's potential state law claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that Plaintiff's Motion for Service (Doc. 18) is TERMINATED, and that the case is CLOSED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 24th day of August, 2020

/s/ _________

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

Vicks v. Packnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Aug 24, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00556-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Aug. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Vicks v. Packnett

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN VICKS v. JAMES PACKNETT, LT., ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Aug 24, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00556-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Aug. 24, 2020)