King v. Slidell City

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT EARL KING, III CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-807

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 the City of Slidell and the Slidell Police Department.1 On July 8, 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 allegations already presented to the Magistrate Judge and argues

1 R. Doc. 3. Plaintiff has four other lawsuits in this district currently undergoing the screening process. King v. Lott, et al., No. 25-785 (E.D. La.); King v. Redivac Transportation Serv., No. 25-808 (E.D. La.); King v. Thompson Meat Packing, et al., No. 25-962 (E.D. La.); King v. Children’s Hosp. Houston, Texas, et al., No. 25-963 (E.D. La.). 2 R. Doc. 11. 3 R. Doc. 12. that he has a claim for deprivation of life and liberty, false arrest, and false imprisonment.4

The Court has reviewed de novo plaintiff’s complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and plaintiff’s objections. The 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 rehashes allegations already presented to the Magistrate Judge,5

and he argues that he has a claim for deprivation of life and liberty, false arrest, and false imprisonment. “[A]n issue raised for the first time in an objection to [an R&R] is not properly before the district court.” Place v. Thomas, 61 F. App’x 120, 2003 WL 342287, at *1 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing

United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992)). Although the district court “may construe an issued raised for the first time in an objection to [an R&R] as a motion to amend,” the Court finds that doing so here would not be in the interests of justice. Id. (citing United States v.

4 Id. 5 Such objections are not entitled to de novo review. Pittman v. Cooley, 23-2071, 2024 WL 263514, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 24, 2024) (Barbier, J.); Welch v. Vannoy, No. 19-2295, 2023 WL 8184313, at *7 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2023) (Morgan, J.) Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Magistrate Judge liberally construed plaintiff’s complaint and found that his federal claims cannot be

brought against the defendants listed. Plaintiff cannot sue the Slidell Police Department, and he has failed to state a claim for municipal liability against the City of Slidell. Plaintiff does not address these findings, and his new claim would fail for the same reasons.

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 given in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court dismisses plaintiff’s state

law claims without prejudice. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs federal civil rights claims WITH PREJUDICE and DISMISSES Plaintiffs state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their being asserted in the state courts.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ day of August, 2025. _hernk Varen SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE