Gough v. McCain

District Court, W.D. Louisiana

Gough v. McCain

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION GREGORY JOSEPH GOUGH . CASE NO. 19-cv-1183

JUDGE DRELL STEVEN STEVEN MCCAIN ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

JUDGMENT For the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of the —

Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after independent (de novo) review of the record including objections filed herein, and having determined that the findings and recommendation are correct under applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 44, 48) are GRANTED IN PART, and Gough’s ADA claims against Coroner Nugent, Bullock, Watkins, Sudduth, and Churchman are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The only remaining ADA claims are against Coroner Nugent and the Sheriff in their official capacities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 21, 48) are GRANTED IN PART, and the claims against Lemoine are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 44, 48) are DENIED in all other respects.

In so ruling we are cognizant that the case is in early stages and that certain factual observations by the Magistrate Judge may be subject to clarification during discovery. At this juncture under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b) all that needs to appear from the record is “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007). Further, we note corrections to the text. The Report and Recommendations, at pages 20-21 refers to a legal doctrine indicated there as “contra non valentum.” An abbreviated wording is often short for the correct name of the legal doctrine contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio. The abbreviated version is correctly used on page 28 and elsewhere as “contra non valentem.” For purposes of this ruling, we adopt the correct name of the doctrine.

oR THUS DONE AND SIGNED this ~day of March 2022

‘DEE D. DRELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown