Curtis Lavson Mitchell v. Nancy A. Miller, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CURTIS LAVSON MITCHELL CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2275

NANCY A. MILLER, ET AL. SECTION: D (2)

ORDER AND REASONS The Court, having considered Plaintiff Curtis Lavson Mitchell’s Amended Complaint,1 the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,2 the failure of the Plaintiff to timely file any objection to the Report and Recommendation,3 and having determined that the Report is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the Court notes that it has construed Plaintiff Curtis Lavson Mitchell’s pro se pleading liberally.4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendant Officer Linden Calvin of the Gretna Police Department and § 1983 personal-capacity claims against Defendants Judge Nancy A. Miller of the 24th Judicial District Court

1 R. Doc. 7. 2 R. Doc. 12. 3 Objections were due June 26, 2026. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has allowed additional time for objections. None have been filed as of the date of this Order. 4 See Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). and District Attorney Paul Connick of Jefferson Parish are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as frivolous.® IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs § 19838 official-capacity claim against Defendant District Attorney Connick is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim.® IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's § 1983 official-capacity claim against Defendant Judge Milleris DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for seeking monetary relief against an immune defendant. New Orleans, Louisiana, July 7, 2026.

WENDY B. WITTER United States District Judge

5 The Court further adopts the Magistrate Judge’s astute and legally correct determinations as to the appropriateness of dismissal with prejudice for these claims. See R. Doc. 12 at p. 22 and footnotes 136 & 144. Further, as Plaintiff has previously filed an Amended Complaint after an earlier Report & Recommendation recommending dismissal of his claims, the Court finds that any further amendment would be futile and declines to afford him another opportunity to amend his Complaint. 6 Id.