Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fusilier v. Zaunbrecher, 2:17-cv-1212. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20180919b87 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KATHLEEN KAY , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss [doc. 24] filed pursuant to Rules 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by defendants in response to the Original [doc. 1] and Amended [doc. 8] Complaint brought by plaintiff Dameon R. Fusilier. 1 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636. Following the filing of the Motion to Dis
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss [doc. 24] filed pursuant to Rules 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by defendants in response to the Original [doc. 1] and Amended [doc. 8] Complaint brought by plaintiff Dameon R. Fusilier.1 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Following the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Doc. 30. By separate order, this court granted that motion. Accordingly, the 12(b)(6) motion is now moot and IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion [doc. 24] be DENIED without prejudice to defendants' abilities to assert any applicable arguments against the claims as pleaded in the second amended complaint.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections with the Clerk of Court. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of receipt shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30 (5th Cir. 1996).

FootNotes


1. Fusilier's wife and son were also plaintiffs in this suit, but have since dismissed all claims. Docs. 28, 32.
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