Vincent v. City of Sulphur

Full title: CAROL J. VINCENT v. CITY OF SULPHUR, ET AL

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

Date published: Aug 24, 2016

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-cv-189 (W.D. La. Aug. 24, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-cv-189

08-24-2016

CAROL J. VINCENT v. CITY OF SULPHUR, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

JUDGE MINALDI

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter came before the undersigned pursuant to a Memorandum Order issued by the district court on August 19, 2016, (Doc. 100) fixing a hearing on the Motion to Compel filed by defendants. Doc. 91. During the course of the hearing plaintiff became very argumentative with the court and he was several times admonished by the court to tone down his rhetoric. And then, when arguing with the court about the extent to which defendants should be entitled to plaintiff's medical records, plaintiff became angry and ultimately orally moved to dismiss his case. Plaintiff then removed himself from the courtroom before the matter was adjourned but, as he was exiting, the court indicated that it would issue a Report and Recommendation to the district court recommending that the oral motion of plaintiff to dismiss the case should be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion of plaintiff to dismiss his case made in open court this day be GRANTED and that this matter be dismissed with prejudice by the district court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections with the Clerk of Court. Timely objections will be considered by the district judge prior to a final ruling.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30 (5th Cir. 1996).

In accordance with Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, this court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Unless a Circuit Justice or District Judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals. Within fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation, the parties may file a memorandum setting forth arguments on whether a certificate of appealability should issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A courtesy copy of the memorandum shall be provided to the District Judge at the time of filing.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 24^th day of August, 2016.

/s/_________

KATHLEEN KAY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE