King v. Lott

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT EARL KING, III CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-785

SLIDELL CITY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS

Plaintiff Robert Earl King, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Corporal Lott, James Franklin, and Walter Reed.1 On July 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s case with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.2 Plaintiff timely filed an objection.3 In his objection, plaintiff restates events of his Spears hearing and requests the Court retrieve records from October 17, 2021.4 The Court has reviewed de novo plaintiff’s complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and plaintiff’s objection. The

1 R. Doc. 3. 2 R. Doc. 10. 3 R. Doc. 11. 4 Id. Magistrate Judge correctly determined that plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Moreover, plaintiff’s objections are meritless. In his objection, plaintiff fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Instead, he provides a narrative of the Spears hearing and makes a new request for records. Reading his objection liberally, plaintiff fails to address any of the deficiencies in his

complaint outside of appearing to withdraw some of his time-barred claims.5 Additionally, plaintiff’s new request that the Court retrieve records is not properly before the Court. See Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th

Cir. 2001) (“[I]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the report of a magistrate judge are not properly before the district judge.”). Plaintiff’s objections are thus overruled, and this Court dismisses his federal law claims with prejudice for the reasons given in the Magistrate

Judge’s R&R. Cf. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating there is no requirement that the district court reiterate the findings of the Magistrate Judge). Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff asserts any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction for the reasons

5 Without corrections to grammar or spelling, King writes: “The events stated previously in the 2000, 2016 were not mentioned as part of the lawsuit but to informed the court of the reasons helisted, and motives by state actors.” R. Doc. 11. given in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court dismisses plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

as its opinion. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs federal claims against defendants Corporal Lott, James Franklin, and Walter Reed WITH PREJUDICE and DISMISSES Plaintiffs state law against defendants Corporal Lott, James Franklin, and Walter Reed WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their being asserted in the state courts.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this_ 2nd_ day of September, 2025. bern Varner SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE