Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Singh

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

February 28, 2019

MARK A. MILLER
v.
PRETTY SINGH ET AL.

          RULING AND ORDER

          Brian A. Jackson, Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before 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 Preety Singh.

         The 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 p. 1).

         For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.

         II. OBJECTIONS

         Plaintiff 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).

         A. The Magistrate Judge's Removal from the

         Case 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 moot.

         B. Plaintiffs Claim Under the ADA

         Plaintiff 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. 10-11).

         C. Plaintiffs Failure to Serve Defendants

         Plaintiff 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. 1990)).

         D. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.