UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROY H. MCLAUGHLIN, JR. (#399370) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-115-JWD-SDJ TIM HOOPER, ET AL. OPINION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 104) wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be denied in connection with any potential state law claims, that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 97) be granted, and that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. Both plaintiff and defendant have filed Objections. (See Docs. 105 and 106.) First, with regards to the plaintiff’s objections, the plaintiff summarizes documents in the record that he asserts show that defendant Hooper received his correspondence and failed to act. However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, these documents and plaintiff’s objections are based on his personal beliefs. The plaintiff has not presented any competent summary judgment evidence showing that defendant Hooper received or had knowledge of the plaintiff’s correspondence. Plaintiff’s personal beliefs are not sufficient. Further, defendant Hooper has presented competent summary judgment evidence by way of his affidavit wherein he specifically denies receipt of the plaintiff’s correspondence. As such, the plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Turning to the defendant’s objection, defendant asserts that it is improper to decline supplemental jurisdiction over potential state law claims and that the Court cannot decline jurisdiction over unidentified claims. The Fifth Circuit has recently found that when a plaintiff’s federal claims are properly dismissed, the District Court does not abuse its state-law claims.” See Perrillioux v. Louisiana,

(5th Cir. 2024). As such, the defendant’s objection is without merit. Having independently reviewed the entire record in this case and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report dated May 9, 2025 (Doc. 104), to which objections

were filed and considered (Docs. 105 and 106); IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 97) is GRANTED, and that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in connection with any potential state law claims. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 31, 2025. S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA