United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
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.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
matter comes before the Court on a second Motion to Dismiss
filed on behalf of defendants James LeBlanc, Dr. Preety
Singh, Tim Hooper, Wanda Dupuy, Dr. Matthew Gamble, Gregory
Polozolo, and Dr. Casey McVea (R. Doc. 43). The motion is
opposed. See R. Doc. 49.
pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at
Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“EHCC”), St.
Gabriel, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans With Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ ADA”) against
Dr. Preety Singh, Warden Tim Hooper, Nurse Wanda Dupuy,
Gregory Polozolo, Dr. Raman Singh, Secretary James LeBlanc,
Dr. Matthew Gamble, Dr. Bickham, and Dr. Casey McVea
complaining that his constitutional rights were violated due
to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He
prays for monetary and declaratory.
February 28, 2019, the plaintiff's claims against
defendants Dr. Bickham and Dr. Raman Singh were dismissed,
without prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to timely
effect service upon them. On the same date all of the
plaintiff's claims were dismissed, with prejudice, except
the plaintiff's retaliation claim and claim for
deliberate indifference asserted against Dr. Preety Singh.
The plaintiff was granted 21 days to amend his complaint with
respect to his retaliation claim and claim for deliberate
indifference asserted against Dr. Preety Singh, without
prejudice to the defendants' reurging of a motion to
dismiss subsequent to the plaintiff's amendments.
See R. Doc. 38.
about March 26, 2019, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. See R. Doc. 39. The instant Motion (R.
Doc. 43) was filed shortly thereafter on April 8, 2019. The
defendants assert that rather than comply with the
Court's Order to amend his complaint with regards to his
retaliation claim and claim for deliberate indifference
asserted against Dr. Preety Singh, the plaintiff added
defendants that were previously dismiss, added twelve new
defendants, failed to allege any additional facts regarding
his claim of deliberate indifference, and failed to allege
personal involvement on the part of any defendant with
regards to his retaliation claim.
review of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 39),
the Court concludes that the defendants are correct, and
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. In his original Complaint, the plaintiff
asserted that defendant Dr. Preety Singh failed to provide
the plaintiff with a duty status that properly identifies his
medical restrictions. The plaintiff was granted leave to
amend his complaint to add further details regarding this
claim. In his Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 39), the plaintiff
makes no allegations with regards to defendant Dr. Preety
Singh. Rather, he makes another assertion void of factual
details that “…defendants refuse to provide him
a Duty stats to protect him inclusive of appropriate
restrictions.” Nor does the plaintiff identify any
person personally involved in the alleged retaliation. For
the reasons previously explained (see R. Doc. 32),
the plaintiff's Complaint as amended fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
extent that the plaintiff's allegations may be
interpreted as seeking to invoke the supplemental
jurisdiction of this court over potential state law claims, a
district court may decline the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction if a plaintiff's state law claims raise
novel or complex issues of state law, if the claims
substantially predominate over the claims over which the
district court has original jurisdiction, if the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original
jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. In the instant case, given the Court's
recommendations, the Court further recommends that the
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be declined as the
plaintiff's state law claims would substantially
predominate over the claims over which the district court has
the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 43) be granted,
that the Court decline the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction in connection with the plaintiff's potential