Savage v. LaSalle Management Co

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-02253
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

WILLIAM T SAVAGE SR CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02253 VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY LASALLE MANAGEMENT CO ET AL MAG. JUDGE MCCLUSKY MEMORANDUM RULING Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) filed by LaSalle Management Company a/k/a LaSalle Correctional Center (“LMC”) and LaSalle Corrections, L.L.C. (“LaSalle”) (together, “Defendants”). The plaintiff, William Savage (“Plaintiff”), opposes (ECF No. 84). Defendants replied (ECF No. 87). The Court has already excluded all of Plaintiff's evidence as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to participate in litigation. See ECF No. 76. So, there is no need to rehash the underlying conduct.! Simply put, because Plaintiff will not be able to put on any evidence at trial, Plaintiff has no case, and thus his case is ripe for dismissal. See King v. King, 117 F.4th 301, 308 (5th Cir. 2024).* Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 29th day of March, 2025.

(erly A. Dou United‘States District Judge

' Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, remains on theme by again “deliver[ing] . . . the most amateurish pleadings” “amounting to dozens of pages of gibberish.” See Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp., Inc., 147 F.Supp.2d 668, 670- 672, n.3 (S.D. Tex. 2001). 2 While King was decided in the summary judgment posture, the reasoning remains. We consider no evidence now, merely proclaiming the reality that Plaintiff is incapable of meeting his burden at trial by virtue of this Court’s prior Order. That said, the Court would alternatively dismiss this case as a sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41 for the reasons enumerated in the prior Order. See ECF. No. 76.