Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Clenant Nickles, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Unknown Davis, Defendant, represented by Grant Lloyd Willis , LA Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General.
Unknown Westbrook, Defendant, represented by Grant Lloyd Willis , LA Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General.
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33), filed by Defendants Charles Westbrook and Daniel Davis. Defendants seek an order of the Court granting summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff's claims asserted against them. Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs claims were prescribed prior to his properly filing those claims in this Court.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and finding that (1) the Plaintiff made a timely attempt to submit his Complaint to the Court on October 21, 2013, and that (2) although Defendants claim that the Complaint was returned to Plaintiff due to his failure to comply with prison procedures that forbid a Complaint from being bound with staples, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the issue of whether Plaintiff was apprised of the relevant procedure. (See Doc. 42).
Defendants timely filed objections to the findings of the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 43). Defendants object to (1) their inability to file a reply memorandum in relation to their Motion for Summary Judgment due to the Court's interpretation of a pleading filed by Plaintiff as a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment;1 (2) the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff made a timely attempt to submit his Complaint to the Court on October 21, 2013; and (3) the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff was not adequately apprised of the prison procedures that forbid a Complaint from being bound with staples. The Court notes that parties do not have a right to file reply memoranda; "[r]eply memoranda . . . may only be filed by leave of court." M.D. La. LR 7(f). Additionally, "genuine issue[s] for trial" preclude summary judgment in relation to Defendants' second and third objections. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250(1986).
Having carefully considered Defendants' Motion, Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition, the Magistrate Judge's Report, and Defendants' objections, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42), and ADOPTS the Report as the Court's opinion herein.
For reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.