Whitfield v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

S.D. Mississippi

Whitfield v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

DecidedDecember 4, 2019

Docket3:17-cv-00987

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Whitfield v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, (S.D. Miss. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY E. WHITFIELD, JR. § PLAINTIFF § § § v. § Civil No. 3:17cv987-HSO-JCG § § MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF § NARCOTICS; OFFICER D. RICE, § Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics; AND § OFFICER JUAN CHAPA, Hinds § County Sheriff’s Department § DEFENDANTS §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT OFFICER JUAN CHAPA’S MOTION [77] FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [77] for Final Judgment filed by Defendant Juan Chapa. After due consideration of the record and the relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for Final Judgment should be granted. On February 13, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Chapa’s Motion [38] for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.’s claims against him. Order [58]. Defendant filed the instant Motion [77] on September 12, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4) (non-moving party must respond to motion within fourteen days of service). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) a court may direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties in an action if the court determines that there is no just reason for delay. In deciding whether to certify a judgment under Rule 54(b), a court must make two determinations. Briargrove

Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc, 170 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 1999). The court must first determine whether its judgment is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Second, it must determine whether any just reason for delay exists. Id. Here, the Court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff Whitfield’s claims against

Defendant Chapa is an ultimate disposition. Further, the Court finds that although this Final Judgment adjudicates fewer than all of the parties’ rights and liabilities, there is no reason for delay of an entry of a final judgment of dismissal of all Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice against Defendant Chapa. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant Officer Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for Entry of Final Judgment is GRANTED, and

Plaintiff Larry E. Whifield, Jr.’s claims against Defendant Juan Chapa are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2019. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY E. WHITFIELD, JR. § PLAINTIFF § § § v. § Civil No. 3:17cv987-HSO-JCG § § MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF § NARCOTICS; OFFICER D. RICE, § Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics; AND § OFFICER JUAN CHAPA, Hinds § County Sheriff’s Department § DEFENDANTS §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT OFFICER JUAN CHAPA’S MOTION [77] FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [77] for Final Judgment filed by Defendant Juan Chapa. After due consideration of the record and the relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for Final Judgment should be granted. On February 13, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Chapa’s Motion [38] for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.’s claims against him. Order [58]. Defendant filed the instant Motion [77] on September 12, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4) (non-moving party must respond to motion within fourteen days of service). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) a court may direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties in an action if the court determines that there is no just reason for delay. In deciding whether to certify a judgment under Rule 54(b), a court must make two determinations. Briargrove

Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc, 170 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 1999). The court must first determine whether its judgment is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Second, it must determine whether any just reason for delay exists. Id. Here, the Court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff Whitfield’s claims against

Defendant Chapa is an ultimate disposition. Further, the Court finds that although this Final Judgment adjudicates fewer than all of the parties’ rights and liabilities, there is no reason for delay of an entry of a final judgment of dismissal of all Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice against Defendant Chapa. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant Officer Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for Entry of Final Judgment is GRANTED, and

Plaintiff Larry E. Whifield, Jr.’s claims against Defendant Juan Chapa are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2019. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whitfield v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitfield-v-mississippi-bureau-of-narcotics-mssd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack