United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
DRELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are three motions for summary judgment filed by the
three remaining defendants in this suit: Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed by Defendant Angela Easom
("Easom"), (Doc. 49); Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed by Defendant Gregory Wise ("Wise"), (Doc.
51); and Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant
Barry Edwards ("Edwards"), (Doc. 68). Plaintiff
Michael Gillam ("Gillam") did not oppose any of the
Magistrate Judge issued Reports and Recommendations
addressing the motions. Docs. 78, 90. As to Easom's
motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge recommends
granting the motion; dismissing with prejudice Gillam's
constitutional claim; and dismissing without prejudice
Gillam's medical malpractice claim because he did not
exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 78, p. 13. As to
Wise's motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting the motion as to Gillam's
constitutional claim, and dismissing it with prejudice; but
denying the motion as to Gillam's state law tort claim.
Id., Finally, as to Edwards' motion for summary
judgment, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion
and dismissing all claims against Edwards with prejudice.
Doc. 90, p. 5.
filed an affidavit, which the Court construes as an objection
to the Report and Recommendation relating to Wise's
motion for summary judgment. Doc. 91. In this affidavit,
Gillam describes in greater detail the underlying
event. Id. at pp. 2-4. The Court has
discretion to accept additional evidence after a magistrate
judge's recommendation has been issued. Performance
Autoplex II Ltd. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 322 F.3d
847, 862 (5th Cir. 2003). However, considering the factors
suggested by the Fifth Circuit, the Court declines to
consider the evidence because Gillam has not moved the Court
to supplement the record nor has he explained why he did not
file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
See Id. Moreover, the Court finds that the new
details in the affidavit would likely not change the
disposition of the motion. See Id. Accordingly, the
Court finds no merit in Gillam's objections to the Report
and Recommendation relating to Wise's motion for summary
judgment. Gillam has not objected to the Reports and
Recommendations regarding Easom's and Edwards's
motions for summary judgment.
in consideration of the pending Reports and Recommendations
recommending dismissal of the federal claims against all
defendants, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state
law claim and instead dismiss the claim without prejudice.
Doc. 93. No objections were filed.
an independent (de novo) review of the record
including the objections filed herein, the Court finds that
the recommendations contained in the Magistrate Judge's
three Reports and Recommendations are correct under
applicable law with the narrow exception of recommending
granting Easom's motion for summary judgment as to
Gillam's state law medical malpractice claim. Regarding
that claim, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
correctly analyzed the issues and correctly concluded that
Gillam has not exhausted his administrative remedies, which
deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Doc. 78, pp. 11-13. However, because the issue
is jurisdictional, the Court will deny Easom's motion for
summary judgment as to Gillam's state law medical
malpractice claim, but dismiss the claim without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, for
the reasons contained in the Reports and Recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein; it is hereby
that Easom's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is
GRANTED IN PART as to Gillam's
constitutional claim and DENIED IN PART as
to Gillam's state law medical malpractice claim.
Gillam's constitutional claim against Easom is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Gillam's
state law medical malpractice claim against Easom is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wise's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is hereby GRANTED IN
PART as to Gillam's constitutional claim and
DENIED IN PART as to Gillam's state law
claim. The constitutional claim against Wise is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edwards's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is hereby
GRANTED, and all claims against him are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that as no claims remain in the
case other than Gillam's state law tort claim against
Wise, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction and DISMISSES the claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
 Gillam also seems to assert a claim
that Wise retaliated against Gillam on October 6, 2014, for
filing a complaint against him. Doc. 91, pp. 4-5. Considering
the fact that Gillam provides no explanation for raising the
issue at this time and has not requested leave to amend his
complaint, and considering the fact that Gillam amended his
complaint roughly five months after the alleged retaliatory
conduct occurred (nearly three years ago) without raising a