Filed: Dec. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2014
Summary: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, record document number 12, which is opposed, 1 and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Vincent Leggio, DDS, record document number 20, which is also opposed. 2 For the reasons which follow, the motions should be denied without prejudice. I. Background Pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center,
Summary: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, record document number 12, which is opposed, 1 and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Vincent Leggio, DDS, record document number 20, which is also opposed. 2 For the reasons which follow, the motions should be denied without prejudice. I. Background Pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center, ..
More
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, record document number 12, which is opposed,1 and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Vincent Leggio, DDS, record document number 20, which is also opposed.2
For the reasons which follow, the motions should be denied without prejudice.
I. Background
Pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center, Lake Charles, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Emergency Medical Services, nurse Dachel Williams, Dr. Vincent Leggio (prison dentist) and Linda Ottesen (prison health care manager). Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights.
On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff filed his amended complaint, titled Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief.3 Although the parties are the same, the plaintiff expanded on the factual allegations and the causes of action against the defendants and asserted claims under the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.4
The parties' motions addressed the claims raised in the original complaint rather than those asserted in the amended Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief. Therefore, both motions should be denied as moot, and without prejudice to the parties filing dispositive motions that specifically address the facts alleged and claims asserted in the amended complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, record document number 12, and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Vincent Leggio, DDS, record document number 20, be denied without prejudice to the parties filing dispositive motions addressing the facts and claims asserted in the plaintiff's Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief.
