Biyiklioglu v. St. Tammany Parish Jail et al

Filing 91

ORDERED that the 89 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and that plaintiff's claims against defendants, Jack Strain, Nico Paternostro, and David J. Horchar, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/3/2015. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GIRAY C. BIYIKLIOGLU

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-1684

ST. TAMMANY PARISH JAIL, ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion1 for summary judgment filed by defendants, Jack Strain, Nico
Paternostro, and David J. Horchar, requesting dismissal of all claims asserted against them by
plaintiff on the basis of qualified immunity and plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Court took the motion under submission on November 18, 2015, the noticed submission date.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, plaintiff’s opposition was due on November 10, 2015; however,
although plaintiff is incarcerated, he has not filed an opposition or requested an extension of time
to respond.2 Accordingly, the Court considers the motion to be unopposed. Considering the facts,
the law, and the memorandum and exhibits submitted by defendants, the motion should be granted
and plaintiff’s claims against the movants should be dismissed.
Upon dismissal of defendants, Jack Strain, Nico Paternostro, and David J. Horchar, there will
be no remaining named defendants in the above-captioned matter. The U.S. Magistrate Judge
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to certain unidentified U.S. Marshals,3 and
ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to “determine the identities of the Marshal’s Service officers who
inspected the St. Tammany Parish Jail during the period of the applicable agreement and to provide

1

R. Doc. No. 89.
The certificate of service reflects that defendants served plaintiff with the motion for summary
judgment on November 2, 2015, by first class mail sent to his current place of incarceration.
3
R. Doc. No. 71.
2

that information to plaintiff.”4 The Court is informed that such discovery was provided to plaintiff
by letter on or about November 6, 2015. However, plaintiff has taken no subsequent action to assert
a claim against the individual identified in that discovery. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
dismissal of plaintiff’s remaining claim against the unidentified U.S. Marshal or Marshals is
appropriate based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, which leaves plaintiff with no claims against
any defendant.
In light of the foregoing and the present posture of this case,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and that plaintiff’s
claims against defendants, Jack Strain, Nico Paternostro, and David J. Horchar, are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 3, 2015.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

R. Doc. No. 83, at 2.