Montgomery v. Logsdon

E.D. Louisiana

Montgomery v. Logsdon

DecidedMarch 21, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-00756

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Montgomery v. Logsdon, (E.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTOPHER B. MONTGOMERY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-756

ANNETTE LOGSDON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)

ORDER Before the Court is defendants CorrectHealth Plaquemines, LLC (“CorrectHealth”) and Annette Logsdon’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Rehabilitation Act “(RA”) claims.1 Pursuant to Eastern District of Louisiana Local Civil Rule 73.2(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld. On January 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon.2 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28

1 R. Doc. 113. 2 R. Doc. 125 at 7. The remaining defendants did not join CorrectHealth and Logsdon’s motion to dismiss, and therefore the R&R does not address claims against those defendants. Id. at 1 n.1. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Having reviewed the R&R, along with plaintiffs complaint, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff's opposition, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when it determined that plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon should be dismissed. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion. Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and that plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against CorrectHealth and Logsdon are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _21st__ day of March, 2022. _ here Varo SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTOPHER B. MONTGOMERY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-756

ANNETTE LOGSDON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)

ORDER Before the Court is defendants CorrectHealth Plaquemines, LLC (“CorrectHealth”) and Annette Logsdon’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Rehabilitation Act “(RA”) claims.1 Pursuant to Eastern District of Louisiana Local Civil Rule 73.2(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld. On January 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon.2 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28

1 R. Doc. 113. 2 R. Doc. 125 at 7. The remaining defendants did not join CorrectHealth and Logsdon’s motion to dismiss, and therefore the R&R does not address claims against those defendants. Id. at 1 n.1. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Having reviewed the R&R, along with plaintiffs complaint, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff's opposition, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when it determined that plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against defendants CorrectHealth and Logsdon should be dismissed. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion. Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and that plaintiffs ADA and RA claims against CorrectHealth and Logsdon are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _21st__ day of March, 2022. _ here Varo SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Montgomery v. Logsdon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-logsdon-laed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack