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.

Harrison v. City of Baton Rouge-Parish

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

April 3, 2019

CATHY L. HARRISON
v.
THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE-PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR-PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.

          NOTICE

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         The Court has granted Cathy L. Harrison's (“Plaintiff”) Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (R. Doc. 5). As Plaintiff is now proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the undersigned has performed a review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or whether it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. A hearing was held on October 25, 2018 pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). (R. Doc. 8).

         I. Nature of the Plaintiff's Allegations

         This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's termination from her employment with the Mayor's Office of Community Development with the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge as of December 4, 2015. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 15). After her termination, Plaintiff filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that her employer discriminated against her in violation of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). (R. Doc. 1-2 at 11-14, 17-22). The EEOC dismissed Plaintiff's charge of discrimination. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 1-4).

         Plaintiff has now filed a Complaint for Employment Discrimination seeking relief under GINA, Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA. (R. Doc. 1). Plaintiff specifically alleges the following as the “relief” she is seeking:

Wrongfully terminated and employer states in termination letter, they were fully aware of ongoing medical issues that affected my ability to work. Health care providers denied me medical care and medical records and this prevented me from receiving the health care I needed, This is a retaliation of my filing [previous] workers comp claims[.] Filed a claim in 8/29/13 for [injury] at work that was my fault, but missed only one day of work, filed second claim on 10/7/14 while attending a training, felled at the airport while [retrieving] luggage but [never] received workers comp[.] Also, have health issues with MS, spinal cord disease and have oral tissue disease from a dental procedure. Also, my employer was fully aware that I had insurance (Cancer and Disability) in the event I was unable to work. I am asking for an unspecified amount against the [named] defendants to pay the plaintiff money for lost wages, pain and suffering, defamation of my character. Even as I file this suit no attorney will represent me or doctor will treat me for my illnesses. I am rapidly [deteriorating] because of muscle atrophy and no medical treatments for my conditions[.]

(R. Doc. 1 at 6).

         Plaintiff named as defendants her former employer, the City of Baton Rouge Office of Community Development, and its directors Bradley Sweazy and Jamie Mabile, as well as the City of Baton Rouge Human Resources, and its directors, Brian Bernard and Carla Peltier (collectively, the “City Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1 at 2, 11). Plaintiff also named the following health care facilities, health care providers, and related entities as defendants: Our Lady of the Lake [H]ospital, Inc. (Drs. Robert Hayden, Matthew Stair, Dan Clark, and [Dan] Godbee); Louisiana Worker's Compensation Corporation (“LWCC”) (Alex Forestner); Baton Rouge Radiology Group, Inc. (Drs. David Hoff, Robert Miller, and Clement Wen); The Baton Rouge Clinic (Drs. Rachel Grunner and Brian Murphy); Women's Hospital (Deborah Ashford); Lane Regional Medical Center Foundation (Drs. Bradley Setset and Charles Greeson); Warner Orthopedics and Wellness (Dr. Meredith Warner); Oschsner Health Systems, Inc. (Ory Marioneaux and Dr. David Alleva); The General Health Foundation (Dr. Robert Branstetter); HMO Louisiana Inc. (Katie Guy); M.D. Medical Clinic (Dr. Karen C. Dantin); Bone & Joint Clinic of Baton Rouge, Inc. (Dr. Patrick Hall); Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (Carol Dutchman, Bonnie Bourgeois, and Les St [sic]); Gastroenterology Associates, LLC (Dr. Rao Maheswar); Oak Hills Periodontics, LLC (Kathy Abbot); Baton Rouge Orthopedic Clinic (Dr. Craig Green and Joshua Hall); Jon G. Taxler MD, LLC; and Dr. Walter J. Jung, IV (collectively, the “Medical Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1 at 8-12).

         II. Law and Analysis

         District courts must construe IFP complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs liberally. Nonetheless, even the most liberally construed IFP complaint can be dismissed at any time, regardless of service ...


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.