Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections

M.D. Louisiana

Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections

DecidedAugust 27, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00449

StatusUnknown

This text of Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections (Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, (M.D. La. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GLENN CHARLES AYO (#531823) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPT. OF NO. 19-00449-BAJ-RLB CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s counseled Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint And Sever Claims Against Randy Lavespere And Paul Marion Toce, Jr. for Deliberate Indifference to Fecal Impaction (R. Doc. 47). The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in part and denied in part, that Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 47-2) be filed into the record, and that the remaining Defendants not named in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Having independently considered Plaintiff’s Motion and related filings,1 the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation (Doc. 52), and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein.

1 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 54). The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s pro se Objection here because “hybrid representation”—partly counseled, partly pro se—is not allowed. United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978); see also United States v. Wiley, 707 F. App'x 802, 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (petitioner had no right to file pro se motions while represented by counsel). The Court cautions that any future pro se filings by Plaintiff while represented by counsel in these proceedings will be stricken. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 47-2) be filed into the record. Defendants shall have fourteen days from the

date of this order to file a response to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining Defendants not named in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be and are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 27th day of August, 2020

______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GLENN CHARLES AYO (#531823) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPT. OF NO. 19-00449-BAJ-RLB CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s counseled Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint And Sever Claims Against Randy Lavespere And Paul Marion Toce, Jr. for Deliberate Indifference to Fecal Impaction (R. Doc. 47). The Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in part and denied in part, that Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 47-2) be filed into the record, and that the remaining Defendants not named in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Having independently considered Plaintiff’s Motion and related filings,1 the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation (Doc. 52), and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein.

1 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 54). The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s pro se Objection here because “hybrid representation”—partly counseled, partly pro se—is not allowed. United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978); see also United States v. Wiley, 707 F. App'x 802, 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (petitioner had no right to file pro se motions while represented by counsel). The Court cautions that any future pro se filings by Plaintiff while represented by counsel in these proceedings will be stricken. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 47-2) be filed into the record. Defendants shall have fourteen days from the

date of this order to file a response to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining Defendants not named in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be and are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 27th day of August, 2020

______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ayo v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayo-v-louisiana-dept-of-corrections-lamd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack