Summer Sears v. Dr. Gerry Cvitanovich, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SUMMER SEARS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 25-1927 DR. GERRY CVITANOVICH, ET AL. SECTION “O” ORDER AND REASONS On September 12, 2025, Plaintiff Summer Sears (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint1 for violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), wrongful death, and related state law claims against Defendants Dr. Gerry Cvitanovich (“Cvitanovich”), Dr. Charles E.

Eckert (“Eckert”), Dr. Charles Preston (“Preston”), Ochsner Medical Center – Kenner, L.L.C. (“Ochsner”), Dr. Susan Taylor (“Taylor”), Kenner Police Department (“KPD”), and Keith A. Conley (“Conley”). Defendants Conley, KPD, Ochsner, Cvitanovich, and Eckert filed motions2 to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not file an opposition to those motions.

On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff moved3 for leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to substitute the City of Kenner in place of KPD, to remove Preston as a defendant, and to clarify certain claims. None of the defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, which was granted4 on March 16, 2026. Plaintiff’s amended complaint5 names Cvitanovich, City of Kenner,

1 ECF No. 1.

2 ECF No. 16; ECF No. 17; ECF No. 18.

3 ECF No. 19.

4 ECF No. 22.

5 ECF No. 23.

Ochsner, and Taylor as defendants. Per her motion for leave, Plaintiff’s amended complaint no longer names KPD or Preston as defendants. In addition, Plaintiff’s amended complaint no longer names Dr. Charles Eckert, Deputy Coroner of Jefferson Parish, or Keith Conley, Chief of Police of the City of Kenner, as defendants.

On March 30, 2026, Defendant Cvitanovich filed a motion6 to dismiss the amended complaint; the following day, Defendant Ochsner also filed a motion7 to dismiss. Defendant Cvitanovich’s motion was noticed for submission on April 15, 2026 and Defendant Ochsner’s motion was noticed for submission on April 29, 2026.

Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that an opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition to either motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Although courts construe pro se filings liberally, the Court still requires pro se parties to “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, because the motions8 to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Defendants Cvitanovich and Ochsner are unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motions have merit,

6 ECF No. 26.

7 ECF No. 27.

8 ECF No. 26; ECF No. 27.

IT IS ORDERED that the motions® to dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims against Cvitanovich and Ochsner are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions! to dismiss Plaintiffs initial complaint! filed by Defendants Conley, KPD, Ochsner, Cvitanovich, and Eckert are DENIED AS MOOT.

A motion for reconsideration of this Order based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, if any, must be filed within thirty days. The motion must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to Defendants’ motions!” to dismiss.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of June, 2026.

BRANDON S. LONG □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ECF No. 26; ECF No. 27.

10 KCF No. 16; ECF No. 17; ECF No. 18.

11 ECF No. 1.

12 ECF No. 26; ECF No. 27.