UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DENNIS DONNELL CHATMAN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-1944
CORRECTHEALTH ST. TAMMANY, SECTION: “J”(5) L.L.C., ET AL.
PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (rec. doc. 10) filed by Sheriff Randy Smith (“Smith”) and Warden Daniel Fleischman (“Fleischman”) (collectively, “Defendants”), each in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff Dennis Donnell Chatman has filed no opposition to the motion. Having rI.e vieweBda cthkeg rmooutniodn and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
pro se On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff Dennis Donnell Chatman filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple Defendants, two of whom are Smith, Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana; and Fleischman, Warden of St. Tammany Parish Jail. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care at St. Tammany Parish Jail for injuries he suffered from a slip and fall that occurred in the jail. (Rec. doc. 1 at 4). Specifically, he alleges, in relevant part: After Plaintiff fell, he laid on the ground due to the excruciating pain until medical staff brought him a wheelchair and wheeled him to medical. At this point he was seen by Unknown Female Nurse, who was very irate with Plaintiff, and refused to follow protocol for broken bones and she exclaimed to him that there was no possibility that he had sustained damage to his skeletal system. She proceeded to give Plaintiff Tylenol . . . March 28, 2024, x- rays were performed on Plaintiff, which revealed his fractured collarbone on the right side. In May of 2024, Plaintiff had an unrelated appointment in complained about the excruciating pain emanating from his untreated broken collarbone. Dr. Gore responded to the Plaintiff by informing him that his collarbone was “no longer fractured” but he refused to let the Plaintiff see the x-ray photos, claiming that Plaintiff would have to pay ten dollars to see them. Plaintiff, however, is indigent. Dr. Gore proceeded to deny his request for an arm sling. Plaintiff deals with extreme chronic pain each day. His requests for medical assistance have been denied, and very little is being done to control the pain. Also, Plaintiff has previously been directed to physical therapy in his shoulder an unrelated injury, however jail staff will not allow him this treatment either. Warden Daniel Fleischman is culpable for deliberate indifference as he responded to Plaintiff’s grievance form with an unfounded finding and denying help. Sheriff Randy Smith is culpable for Id. the same reason.
( at 4-6). Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint are St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office’s Response to Inmate Grievance and Sheriff Review Decision, stating that Plaintiff was seen in medical on four separate occasions in connection with his fall. (Rec. doc. 1-1 at 4-5). During those visits to medical, Plaintiff received x-rays to the left wrist, right shoulder, Iadn.d. spine, revealing no fractures, and was treated with Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and Mobic. ( ) Furthermore, Plaintiff is routinely examined pursuant to a chronic care plan which includes treatment related to complaints of shoulder pain resulting from a pre-in cIda.rc.eration rotator-cuff surgery that was not properly rehabilitated with physical therapy. ( ) Communications between Plaintiff and Smith include the Sheriff Review Decision of his grievance. (Rec. doc. 1-1 at 5). Plaintiff did not attach any grievance to or response IfrI.o m FlSetisacnhdmaarnd toon h Miso Ctoiomnp tloai Dnti.s m iss
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon whichS eree lLieofw craeny bve. Tgerxa.n Ate &d . M S uUcnhi va. motion is rarely granted because it is viewed with disfavor. Sys. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avo,n d1a1l7e SFh.3ipdy a2r4d2s,, I2n4c7. (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting , 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982)). Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain
aA s“hschroorftt av.n Idq bpalalin statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” , 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but itI dd.emands more tBhealnl Aatnl. Cuonrapd. ovr. nTewdo, mthbely-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” at 678 (citing , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] alSle we eTlhl-opmlepasdoend v f.a Ccittsy aosf tWruaec oa,n Tde vxi.ew[s] all facts in the light most favorable to tDhoee p elaxi nrteilf.f .M” agee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex, r7e6l.4 K Fe.y3sd 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing
, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). But, in deciding whether dismisIdsa. l is warranted, thIeq Cboaulrt will not accept conclusory allegations in the complaint as true. at 502-03 (citing , 556 U.S. at 678). To survive dismissal, “‘a complaint must contain sufficGioennzta flaeczt uv.a Kl amyatter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relieIfq tbhaalt is plausible on its face.’” , 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting , 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on tThweo amssbulymption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnote omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to Idqrbaawl the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” , 556 U.S. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”). This is a “context-specific task thatI dr.equires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” at 679. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, iItd .stops short of the line between possibilityT wanodm bpllyausibility of entitlement to relief.” at 678 (internal quotations omitted) (citing , 550 U.S. at 557). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’”, thus, “requires more than labels andT cwonomclubslyions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” , 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Finally, “[w]hen reviewing a motion to dismiss, a district court ‘must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources ordinarily examined when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporatFeudn ikn tvo. Stthrey kceorm Cpolrapi.nt by reference, and matters of which a court mTealyla tbask, eI njuc.d vic. iMala nkootri cIess.”u es & Rights, Ltd.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DENNIS DONNELL CHATMAN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-1944
CORRECTHEALTH ST. TAMMANY, SECTION: “J”(5) L.L.C., ET AL.
PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (rec. doc. 10) filed by Sheriff Randy Smith (“Smith”) and Warden Daniel Fleischman (“Fleischman”) (collectively, “Defendants”), each in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff Dennis Donnell Chatman has filed no opposition to the motion. Having rI.e vieweBda cthkeg rmooutniodn and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
pro se On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff Dennis Donnell Chatman filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple Defendants, two of whom are Smith, Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana; and Fleischman, Warden of St. Tammany Parish Jail. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care at St. Tammany Parish Jail for injuries he suffered from a slip and fall that occurred in the jail. (Rec. doc. 1 at 4). Specifically, he alleges, in relevant part: After Plaintiff fell, he laid on the ground due to the excruciating pain until medical staff brought him a wheelchair and wheeled him to medical. At this point he was seen by Unknown Female Nurse, who was very irate with Plaintiff, and refused to follow protocol for broken bones and she exclaimed to him that there was no possibility that he had sustained damage to his skeletal system. She proceeded to give Plaintiff Tylenol . . . March 28, 2024, x- rays were performed on Plaintiff, which revealed his fractured collarbone on the right side. In May of 2024, Plaintiff had an unrelated appointment in complained about the excruciating pain emanating from his untreated broken collarbone. Dr. Gore responded to the Plaintiff by informing him that his collarbone was “no longer fractured” but he refused to let the Plaintiff see the x-ray photos, claiming that Plaintiff would have to pay ten dollars to see them. Plaintiff, however, is indigent. Dr. Gore proceeded to deny his request for an arm sling. Plaintiff deals with extreme chronic pain each day. His requests for medical assistance have been denied, and very little is being done to control the pain. Also, Plaintiff has previously been directed to physical therapy in his shoulder an unrelated injury, however jail staff will not allow him this treatment either. Warden Daniel Fleischman is culpable for deliberate indifference as he responded to Plaintiff’s grievance form with an unfounded finding and denying help. Sheriff Randy Smith is culpable for Id. the same reason.
( at 4-6). Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint are St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office’s Response to Inmate Grievance and Sheriff Review Decision, stating that Plaintiff was seen in medical on four separate occasions in connection with his fall. (Rec. doc. 1-1 at 4-5). During those visits to medical, Plaintiff received x-rays to the left wrist, right shoulder, Iadn.d. spine, revealing no fractures, and was treated with Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and Mobic. ( ) Furthermore, Plaintiff is routinely examined pursuant to a chronic care plan which includes treatment related to complaints of shoulder pain resulting from a pre-in cIda.rc.eration rotator-cuff surgery that was not properly rehabilitated with physical therapy. ( ) Communications between Plaintiff and Smith include the Sheriff Review Decision of his grievance. (Rec. doc. 1-1 at 5). Plaintiff did not attach any grievance to or response IfrI.o m FlSetisacnhdmaarnd toon h Miso Ctoiomnp tloai Dnti.s m iss
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon whichS eree lLieofw craeny bve. Tgerxa.n Ate &d . M S uUcnhi va. motion is rarely granted because it is viewed with disfavor. Sys. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avo,n d1a1l7e SFh.3ipdy a2r4d2s,, I2n4c7. (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting , 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982)). Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain
aA s“hschroorftt av.n Idq bpalalin statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” , 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but itI dd.emands more tBhealnl Aatnl. Cuonrapd. ovr. nTewdo, mthbely-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” at 678 (citing , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] alSle we eTlhl-opmlepasdoend v f.a Ccittsy aosf tWruaec oa,n Tde vxi.ew[s] all facts in the light most favorable to tDhoee p elaxi nrteilf.f .M” agee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex, r7e6l.4 K Fe.y3sd 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing
, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). But, in deciding whether dismisIdsa. l is warranted, thIeq Cboaulrt will not accept conclusory allegations in the complaint as true. at 502-03 (citing , 556 U.S. at 678). To survive dismissal, “‘a complaint must contain sufficGioennzta flaeczt uv.a Kl amyatter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relieIfq tbhaalt is plausible on its face.’” , 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting , 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on tThweo amssbulymption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and footnote omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to Idqrbaawl the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” , 556 U.S. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”). This is a “context-specific task thatI dr.equires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” at 679. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, iItd .stops short of the line between possibilityT wanodm bpllyausibility of entitlement to relief.” at 678 (internal quotations omitted) (citing , 550 U.S. at 557). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’”, thus, “requires more than labels andT cwonomclubslyions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” , 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Finally, “[w]hen reviewing a motion to dismiss, a district court ‘must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources ordinarily examined when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporatFeudn ikn tvo. Stthrey kceorm Cpolrapi.nt by reference, and matters of which a court mTealyla tbask, eI njuc.d vic. iMala nkootri cIess.”u es & Rights, Ltd. , 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting , 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)). If the Court considers materials outside of the pleadings, tSheee m Coatuisoeny tvo. dSeiswmeilsl sC amduilslat cb-eC hterevraoteledt , aIsn ca. motion for summary judgment undPehro eRnuilxe o 5n6 b. e half of S.W. v. Lafourche Par. Gov't , 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004); see also , No. CV 19-13004, 2021 WL 184909, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2021); III. FedL.a Rw. Cainvd. P A. n12a(lyds).i s
A. Section 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a damages remedy for the violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights under color of state law. It provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.
Because Section 1983 merely provides a remedy for designated rights, rather than creating any substaHntairvrei nrgigthonts ,v “. aHna urnridserlying constitutional or statutory violation is a predicate to liability.” , 118 F.3d 359, 365 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). To plead a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law, (2) that occurred under color of state law, and Victoria( 3W) .w va. Ls acrapuesnetde rby a state actor. , 369 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Section 1983H calafeimr sv . cManel obe brought against a public official in his or her individual or official capacity. , 502 U.S. 21, 23 (1991). Here, Plaintiff is suing Smith and FleishmBa.n botIhn idni vthideiura iln-dCiavpidaucaitly a nCdla oimffisc ial capacities. (Rec. doc. 1 at 1). To succeed in an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim, it has long beenT hheolmd ptshoant “v[. pS]teeresleonal involvement is an essential element of Rai zczivoi lv r. iGgohotsd ecause of action.” , 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing , 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976) (noting that an affirmative link is necessary between injury and conduct of
defendant)). SLeiea bWiliattys omn avy. bInet eforsutnadte oFnilrye i&f tChaesr.e C ios. personal involvement of the official being sBueadsk. i n v. Parker , 611 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing , 602 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir. 1979)). In order to successfully plead a cause of action in a Section 1983 case, a plaintiff must enunciate a set of facts that Jacquez v. Procunier illustrate the defendant’s participation in the alleged wrong. Se, e8 0C1n tFy..2 odf 7Sa8c9r,a 7m9e3n (t5ot hv. CLierw. 1is986). In addition, any alleged violation must be intentional. , 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998) (“[L]iability for negligently inflicted harm is
categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.”). There is no allegation that Smith or Fleischman had any involvement in the medical treatment administered to Plaintiff. As noted above, Plaintiff asserts “Warden Daniel Fleischman is culpable for deliberate indifference as he responded to Plaintiff’s grievance form with an unfounded finding and denying help. Sheriff Randy Smith is culpable for the same reason.” (Rec. doc. 1 at 6). However, Plaintiff failed to attach any communications to or from Fleischman to his Complaint, and received only a Sheriff Review Decision from Smith detailing the medical treatment he received in response to his fall. Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to allege any personal involvement whatsoever by these defendants in the acts or omissions relating to his medical care following his fall. Construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, he may mean to assert that Defendants did not take action in his favor on review of his administrative grievance complaint. However, Defendants may not be held liable undeJarc Skescotnio vn. C1o9r8r3ec fto rC arrees pSoonlsd.,ing to his grievance or denying him relief in that proceeding. No. CV 24-1109, 2024 WL 3688382 at *3 (E.D. La. July 8, 2024) (finding Sheriff Smith and Warden Fleischman not liable under § 1983 when the only arguable assertion against them was that they di d not
take action in plaintiff’s favor on review of his administrative grievance complaint). It is well-established that a prisoner has no protected liberty inteSrmesitt hi nv .e iHthoerrto tnhe adequacy or the result of prison administraGtievieg egrr ive. vJoawnceer sprocedures. , 670 FE.a Asopnp 'vx. 872, 873 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing , 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005); Thaler , 73 F.3d 1322, 1325-26 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff has
f ailed toC .s tate aO fSfeicctiaioln-C 1a9p8a3c ictlya iCmla aimgasin st Defendants in their individual capacities.
respoNnodteaabtl ys,u npeeirtihoerr the Sheriff nor the Warden may be held responsible under a theory of under SectioEn a1s9o8n3, based on a claiamc ctohradt Fpireilsdo vn. Cpoerrrs.o Cnonrepl. oufn Admer. tInhce.ir supervision caused his injury. , 73 F.3d at 1327; , 364 F. App'x 927, 929 (5th Cir. 2010). A supervisory official may be held liable for his subordinates’ actions under Section 1983 only if the officSieael Miomnpellelmented an unconstitutionalT hpoomlicpys otnh avt. Jcoahunssaolnly resulted in plaintiff's injury. , 43M6o Uui.Sll.e avt. 6Ci9t1y -o9f5 L (i1v9e 7O8a)k; , 348 F. App'x 919, 921 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing , 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege
that Smith or Fleischman implemented an unconstitutional policy and instead states only that they each reTshpoomnpdkeidn st ov . PBlaeilnttiff’s grievance form with “an unfounded finding and denying help.” , 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987) (Supervisory officials “are not liable for the actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability” and will only be liable if the official “implement[s] a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.”). Official-capacity suits “generally representK oenntlyu caknyo vt.h Gerra whaamy of pleading an action
against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” , 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). Accordingly, an official-capacity claim againJsatc Skmsointh v o. rC Folreriesccth mCaarne wSoolusl.,d in reality be a claim against the local governmental body. 2024 WL 3688382 at *3. For such a claim, a plaintiff must identify a policy or custom that allegedly SeeMonell caused the deprivation of his constitutional rights. , 436 U.S. at 691-95. Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of three elements: a policymaker, an official policy, and a violation of Pcioontrsotiwtustkiio nva. l Criigtyh tso;f anHdo uthsteo npolicy must be the “moving force”
behind the vMioolnaetiloln. see alsoWhite v. , T2e3xa7s F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing , 436 U.S. at 694); , No. 23-11190, 2024 WL 1826245, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2024). Under a broad reading of Plaintiff’s Complaints, he does not allege any policy of Smith, Fleischman, the Sheriff’s Office, St. Tammany Parish Jail, or the Parish that was involved with his medical care or otherwise. Instead, Plaintiff alleges only that Defendants responded to his grievance with “an unfounded finding and denying help.” (Rec. doc. 1 at 6). FurthermoMrec,M “Falneuissh vm. Satn. Tcaamnnmoatn bye P asur.e Jda iiln his official capacity because he is not a
policymaker.” , No. CV 21-1533, 2024 WL 1701937, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2024). For these reasons, any official-capacity claims against Defendants 1 IsVh.o uld Uben kdnisomwisns eFde.m a le Nurse
Plaintiff lists “Unknown Female Nurse” in her individual and official capacities as a Defendant. This claim is improper. A “[p]laintiff may not pursue claims against the unidentifieHdil lm ve. dSitcraal ipnersonnel . . . A § 1983 action must be filed against an actual identified person.a” c cord Champio,n C viv. P. aArcktilaonnd N Jaoi. l 0H8e-a4l7th68, 2010 WL 111062, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2010); , No. 3-09-CV-0689, 2009 WL 1904816,
1 at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 2, 2009) (“To the extent plaintiff wants to sue the unidentified nurses . . . the federal rules do not permit him to do so. Unless and until plaintiff is able to identify the n urses, the court cannot direct service on the proper defendants.”).
Furthermore, Plaintiff has no claim against “Unkin.eo.wn Female Nurse” in her official capacity for the same reasons explained above, , there is no evidence of an unconstitutional policy. Similarly, there is no claim against in “Unknown Female Nurse” her individual capacity, as the standard for deliberate indifference is not satisfied for the reasons explained in reAcu. gduosct. 1v.1 G. uAscmcaonrdingly, all claims against “Unknown Female Nurse” should be dismissed. , Civ. Action No. 06-3962, 2008 WL 466202, at *7 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2008) (“claims against . . . unidentified defesened aanlstos Hfaiilll to state a claim for which relief can be granted and are otherwise frivolous.”). , 2010 WL 111062,
aVt. *3. Conclusion
FITo rI tSh Re EfoCrOegMoMinEgN reDaEsDons, that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a ClaimGR (AreNcT. dEoDc. 10) filed by Defendants Sheriff Randy Smith and Warden Daniel FITle iIsSc hFmURanT HbeE R RECOMM. ENDED that Plaintiff’Ds IcSlMaimISsS EaDga iWnsItT “HU nPkRnoEwJUnD FICemEale Nurse” in her individual and official capacities be as
frivolous and for otherwise faiNliOngT tIoC Est OatFe Ra IcGlaHimT ToOn wOhBiJcEhC rTe lief may be granted.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the partDyo huagsla bsse ve.n U sneitrevde dS twatietsh Anuottoi.c Aes tshoac.t
such consequences will result from a fai l u re to object. , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en ban1c4)t. h November New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of _________________________, 2024.
__________________________________________ MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE