Washington v. Lavespere

Full title: MARLON WASHINGTON v. RANDY LAVESPERE ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Apr 2, 2019

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-273-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Apr. 2, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-273-BAJ-RLB

04-02-2019

MARLON WASHINGTON v. RANDY LAVESPERE ET AL.

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The United States Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff fails to plead plausible deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Randy Lavespere. (Doc. 23 at p. 4). The United States Magistrate Judge thus recommends that the Court grant Dr. Lavespere's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's potential state-law claims. (Id. at pp. 6-7).

Plaintiff timely objected. (Doc. 24). He faults the United States Magistrate Judge for reading his complaint "too narrowly" and insists that he has pleaded plausible claims. (Id.). His objection lacks merit. (Id.). It raises the same arguments the United States Magistrate Judge considered and rejected in a thorough Report and Recommendation. (Id.). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees with the United States Magistrate Judge's conclusion: Plaintiff's gripe with Dr. Lavespere for prescribing alternative medication is merely a disagreement with treatment that does not constitute a constitutional violation. See Hendrix v. Lloyd Ashberger, P.A., 689 F. App'x 250 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The Court therefore approves the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by Dr. Randy Lavespere is GRANTED. Plaintiff's deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Randy Lavespere are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff purports to assert against Dr. Lavespere.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 2^nd day of April, 2019.

/s/ _________

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA