Adams v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, No. 3:2018cv00191 - Document 95 (M.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION Adopting 90 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Darbone, Diaz, Wright, Honeycutt, and Dr. Barkmeyer are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to time ly effect service upon them. The summary judgment record establishes that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain claims prior to filing suit. The 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part, dism issing all of the plaintiff's claims, with prejudice, except: (1) the plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs asserted against defendants S. Lamartiniere, Adams, Dr. Lavespere, Dr. Gamble, Bellamy, and Smith and (2) the plaintiffs claim for excessive force asserted against defendant Holmes. In all other regards the Motion (Doc. 41) is denied, and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 4/3/2019. (KAH)

Download PDF
Adams v. Louisiana Department of Corrections Doc. 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COREY MARQUEE ADAMS (#357624) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-191-JWD-RLB LOUISIANA DEPT. OF CORR., ET AL. OPINION After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report dated March 12, 2019, to which an opposition was filed (Doc. 91); IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Darbone, Diaz, Wright, Honeycutt, and Dr. Barkmeyer are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to timely effect service upon them. Additionally, the summary judgment record establishes that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain claims prior to filing suit. As such, the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment with respect to any non-moving defendants sua sponte after giving the plaintiff notice and a reasonable time to respond. The objection period which follows this Report and Recommendation, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal of Civil Procedure 72(b), satisfies the notice requirement. See Treadway v. Wilkinson, 2008 WL 4224817, n.3, (W.D. La. June 10, 2008). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) is granted in part, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, except: (1) the plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs asserted against Dockets.Justia.com defendants S. Lamartiniere, Adams, Dr. Lavespere, Dr. Gamble, Bellamy, and Smith and (2) the plaintiff’s claim for excessive force asserted against defendant Holmes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other regards the Motion (Doc. 41) is denied, and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 3, 2019. S JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.