Thompson v. Hedrick, 1:17-CV-00982. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20190716784
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT DEE D. DRELL , District Judge . For the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after independent ( de novo ) review of the record including the objections filed herein, and having determined that the findings and recommendation are correct under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Docs. 22 and 36) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Thompson's claim fo
Summary: JUDGMENT DEE D. DRELL , District Judge . For the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after independent ( de novo ) review of the record including the objections filed herein, and having determined that the findings and recommendation are correct under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Docs. 22 and 36) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Thompson's claim for..
More
JUDGMENT
DEE D. DRELL, District Judge.
For the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after independent (de novo) review of the record including the objections filed herein, and having determined that the findings and recommendation are correct under the applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Docs. 22 and 36) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
Thompson's claim for relief against Defendants in their individual and official capacities under § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Thompson's claims against Brown and Brock are also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendants' motion to dismiss Thompson's state law tort claims against Sheriff Hedrick is DENIED as Sheriff Hedrick is subject to vicarious liability under state law. However, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as all of his federal claims have been dismissed.
Accordingly, Thompson's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
