Montgomery v. Logsdon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTOPHER B. MONTGOMERY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-756 ANNETTE LOGSDON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)

ORDER Before the Court is defendants CorrectHealth Plaquemines, LLC (“CorrectHealth”) and Annette Logsdon’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.1 Pursuant to Eastern District of Louisiana Local Civil Rule 73.2(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld. On August 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld issued a partial Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 19832 against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon.3

Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1 R. Doc. 95.

2 Plaintiff asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the American with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation Act”). R. Doc. 1 at 5-6. Because defendants’ motion to dismiss did not address the ADA or Rehabilitation Act Claims, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld provided no recommendation regarding those claims. See R. Doc. 102 at 8, 16, 17.

3 R. Doc. 102 at 1. The remaining defendants did not join CorrectHealth and Logsdon’s motion to dismiss, and therefore the R&R does not address claims against those defendants. Id.

1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the receommendation.”).

Having reviewed the R&R, along with plaintiffs amended complaint, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when it determined that plaintiffs § 1983 claims against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon should be dismissed. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s partial R&R as its opinion.

Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants’ initial motion to dismiss? is DENIED as moot because of plaintiffs amended complaint. The Court further orders that defendants’ subsequent motion to dismiss5 is GRANTED, and that plaintiffs federal constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of September, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 R. Doc. 43.

5 R. Doc. 95.