Morgan v. Gusman et al
ORDER AND REASONS denying 22 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/2016. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff Darryl Morgan filed a complaint pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff Marlin N.
Gusman and a number of his deputies. 1 In sum, Morgan alleged he was subject to a
number of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and was denied adequate medical
treatment while incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison. 2 After conducting a Spears
hearing and considering Morgan’s complaints, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Wilkinson
issued a Report and Recommendation on January 15, 2016, recommending that Morgan’s
complaint be dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous and/or for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).3
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 29, 2016.
Morgan did not file objections to the Report within that time frame. Accordingly, the
undersigned adopted Judge Wilkinson’s Report and Recommendation, in full, on
February 2, 2016, 4 and entered a Judgment dismissing Morgan’s complaint with
prejudice on the same date. 5 On April 15, 2016, more than two months after the deadline
R. Doc. 1.
See R. Doc. 1.
3 R. Doc. 15.
4 R. Doc. 16.
5 R. Doc. 17.
for filing objections, Morgan filed into the record a request to reopen his case, asserting
for the first time objections to Judge Wilkinson’s Report and Recommendation. 6
Whether to consider late-filed objections to a Report and Recommendation is
entirely within the Court’s discretion. 7 The Court finds no reason to exercise its discretion
and consider Morgan’s late-filed objections in this case. Morgan had an opportunity to
file objections prior to January 29, 2016, but failed to do so, instead waiting over two
months to raise issues with the Report and Recommendation. Furthermore, even if the
Court were to consider Morgan’s filing, it would be an exercise in futility, as his objections
to the Report and Recommendation are not meritorious. From what the Court can tell,
Morgan argues the Report and Recommendation, and this Court’s Order adopting the
Report, were incorrectly based only on his claim that he was unconstitutionally deprived
medical treatment, not on his claim that the conditions of confinement in Orleans Parish
Prison were unconstitutional. 8 The Court must disagree with this argument, as the Report
and Recommendation goes to great lengths to address both of Morgan’s claims, i.e., first,
Morgan’s claim that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and
second, Morgan’s claim that the medical treatment he received was unconstitutional.9
Likewise, in adopting the Report and Recommendation, this Court was cognizant of the
universe of Morgan’s claims and agreed with the Magistrate Judge with respect to both.
R. Doc. 22.
v. Alford, 62 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit noted that "district courts need not consider
late objections" to a Report and Recommendation. Instead, whether to consider late-filed objections is
within the district court's discretion. Id. See also Loredo v. Barnhart, 210 F. App'x 417, 418 n.1 (5th Cir.
2006) (quoting Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding it within the district
court's discretion whether to consider late-filed objections)). Courts outside of the Fifth Circuit have also
weighed in on this issue. See, e.g., Jones v. Williams, No. 92-1157, 1993 WL 477916, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May
28, 1993) ("It is entirely within this Court's discretion whether to allow the untimely objection, and in most
every case the Court will not allow late objections.").
8 R. Doc. 22.
9 See R. Doc. 15.
7 In Scott
IT IS ORDERED that Morgan’s request to reopen his case is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of April, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?