United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
MARK A. MILLER
PRETTY SINGH ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
A. Jackson, Judge
the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation
addresses the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 13) filed by Defendants Wanda Dupuy,
Tim Hooper, James Lablanc, Casey McVea, Gregory Polozolo, and
Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days from
the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 32 at
reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is
ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
filed several objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. 33). When a party objects to a magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations, the Court reviews de
novo the recommendations to which an objection is made. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court need not consider
frivolous, conclusory, or generalized objections. Battle
v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421
(5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Nor need it reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the United States Magistrate
Judge. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th
Cir. 1993) (per curiam). After its review, the Court may
accept, reject, or modify the recommendation of the
magistrate judge, receive further evidence in the case, or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with further
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Magistrate Judge's Removal from the
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation by asserting that Plaintiffs motion to remove
the Magistrate Judge from these proceedings is still pending.
Since the filing of Plaintiffs objections, the Court has
denied Plaintiffs motion. As such, Plaintiffs argument is
Plaintiffs Claim Under the ADA
asserts that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly decided that
his ADA claims should be dismissed. (Doc. 33 at p. 2). The
Court is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's detailed
analysis of the alleged facts and law regarding this issue
and will not modify the conclusions reached. (Doc. 32 at pp.
Plaintiffs Failure to Serve Defendants
objects to the Magistrate Judge recommendation that his
claims against Bickham and Raman Singh be dismissed for
failure to serve. The record indicates that neither Bickham
nor Ramen Singh were ever served. (Doc. 9). As such, the
Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's finding that
Plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed. Dupre
v. Touro Infirmary, 235 F.3d 1340 (Table) (5th Cir.
2000) ("Pro se status does not excuse a
litigant's failure to effect service.") (quoting
Systems Signs Supplies v. United States Dep't of
Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir.