Fields v. Hooper

Full title: TERRY JOE FIELDS v. TIM HOOPER ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jul 31, 2019

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00707-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Jul. 31, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-00707-BAJ-RLB

07-31-2019

TERRY JOE FIELDS v. TIM HOOPER ET AL.

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

RULING AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) filed by Defendants. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be granted because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 42 at p. 6).

The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 42 at p. 1).

For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.

II. OBJECTIONS

Much of Plaintiff's Opposition to the Report and Recommendation reiterates facts and arguments articulated in his Complaint and Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed such arguments in the Report and Recommendation and therefore finds no need to address them here.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he is not entitled to appointed counsel. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's initial order denying Plaintiff counsel and agrees that exceptional circumstances, which would warrant appointment of counsel, are absent in this case. (Doc. 21 at p. 2). Accordingly, the Court finds no need to modify the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff is not entitled to appointed counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the instant motions, and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby adopts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Barrere, Johnson, Brock, Brown, and Young are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to effect timely service upon them.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants LeBlanc, Hooper, and Ranatza for events occurring prior to the filing of the initial Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants LeBlanc, Hooper, and Ranatza for events occurring subsequent to the filing of the initial Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in connection with Plaintiff's potential state law claims and that this matter is DISMISSED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 31^ST day of July, 2019.

/s/ _________

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA