Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Travis, 17-1800-SDD-EWD. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20180802985 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2018
Summary: RULING SHELLY D. DICK , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss 1 filed by Defendants, Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, and Dennis Grimes, Warden of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. No opposition to this motion has been filed. Local rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion. In the present case, the moti
More

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by Defendants, Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, and Dennis Grimes, Warden of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. No opposition to this motion has been filed.

Local rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion.

In the present case, the motion by Defendants was electronically filed on January 5, 2018. A review of the record shows that far more than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed since the electronic service of this Motion, and no memorandum in opposition has been submitted to date.

Therefore, this Motion is deemed to be unopposed and further, after reviewing the record, the Court finds that the Motion has merit. Plaintiff's Petition for Damages2 contains no factual allegations concerning these Defendants other than the general allegation that Plaintiff was an inmate of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.3 Additionally, Defendants dispute that Plaintiff was an inmate of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison at the time of the alleged incident.4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss5 by Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III, and Warden Dennis Grimes is GRANTED, and they are dismissed from this case without prejudice.

Any response to this Ruling, which should explain the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's deadlines, based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, shall be filed within fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to the original Motion.

On review of the pleadings filed along with the opposition, the Court, at its discretion, may assess costs, including attorney's fees, against the moving party, if the Court deems that such a motion was unnecessary had a timely opposition memorandum been filed.6 A statement of costs conforming to L.R. 54(c) shall be submitted by all parties desiring to be awarded costs and attorney's fees no later than seven (7) days prior to the hearing on the newly filed motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Rec. Doc. 4.
2. Rec. Doc. 1-2.
3. Id. at p. 2.
4. Rec. Doc. 4-1, p. 5.
5. Rec. Doc. 4.
6. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 83.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer