Hmeid v. Nelson Coleman Correctional Center et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 . IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint against Nelson Coleman Correctional Center and his claims concerning his medical care, conditions of confinement, mail tampering, recreation time and ho using classification against individual defendants Charles Floyd, David Bailey, Rocco Dominic, and Darryl Richardson are 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). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that further proceedings are required as to plaintiff's remaining excessive force claim under Section 1983 against defendants Charles Floyd, David Bailey, Rocco Dominic and Darryl Richardson. A jury trial has been demanded. (Rec. Doc. 12). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assigned magistrate judge is directed to determine (a) if counsel should be appointed from this court's Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent plaintiff in this matter, and (b) if all parties consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 10/10/2018.(cg)(cc: Judge Joseph Wilkinson, Jr.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BASHIR IBRAHIM HMEID

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-3449

NELSON COLEMAN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER ET AL.

SECTION “J” (2)

ORDER
The Court, after considering the petition, the record, the applicable law, the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure
of any party to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as
its opinion herein. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint against Nelson Coleman
Correctional Center and his claims concerning his medical care, conditions of
confinement, mail tampering, recreation time and housing classification against
individual defendants Charles Floyd, David Bailey, Rocco Dominic, and Darryl
Richardson are 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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that further proceedings are required as to
plaintiff’s remaining excessive force claim under Section 1983 against defendants
Charles Floyd, David Bailey, Rocco Dominic and Darryl Richardson.
A jury trial has been demanded. (Rec. Doc. 12). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the assigned magistrate judge is directed to determine (a) if counsel

should be appointed from this court’s Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent plaintiff in
this matter, and (b) if all parties consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of October, 2018.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE