UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALBERT GREEN, JR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS BURL CAIN, ET AL. NO. 19-00506-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation (Doc. 12), recommending that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915(e) and 1915A because Plaintiffs claims are clearly prescribed. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, asserting that although he filed suit 11 years after his alleged injury, he is still within his rights under federal law. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff asks the Court to “look past” the time limitation as he was not aware that a time limitation was in effect. (Id.). The Court cannot simply look past the time limitation, as “fiJt is well established that mere ignorance of the law for any reason, including lack of counsel, does not toll a statute of limitations.” Bluitt v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,

, 718 (8.D. Tex. 2002); see also Felder v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2000) (Garza, E. dissenting) (“The majority is correct to note that ignorance of the law is not itself a basis for equitable toiling of a statute of limitations, even for pro se prisoners.”), Despite Plaintiffs lack of knowledge

regarding the relevant time limitation, Plaintiff had one year in which to file suit. See Crane v. Childers,

, 204 (5th Cir. 2016) (finding that plaintiffs state law and

claims were subject to the one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions under Louisiana law because the court borrows the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period when determining whether such actions are time barred following the date of accrual); see also La. Civ. Code art. 3492 (“Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of one year.”). As Plaintiff filed suit 11 years after his alleged injury, his claims are clearly prescribed. Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, Plaintiffs Objection, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

(e) and 1915A.

Baton Rouge, Louisi thi 10% fD ber, 2020 ge, Louisiana, this _ day of December, B's > JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA