Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management

Filing 134

RULING: After reviewing plaintiffs appeal, the ruling of the magistrate judge, and the record in this case, the Court finds that for reasons set forth by the magistrate judge, which are adopted herein as this Courts opinion, the August 16, 2010, ruling is hereby AFFIRMED. Finally, while not pertinent to the issue on this appeal, the Court finds that the magistrate judge and this judge have timely ruled on all motions filed in this case.. Signed by Judge Frank J. Polozola on 9/15/2010. (CMM, )

Corley v. State Of Louisiana Through Division Of Administration, Office Of Risk Management

Doc. 134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IDELLA CORLEY VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 06-882-FJP-SCR

RULING The plaintiff, Idella Corley, has filed an appeal1 of the decision rendered by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on August 16, 2010,2 which grants in part the defendants' Motion to Strike allegations contained in paragraphs 14-15, 33-34, 36-44, 4669, 84-85, 138, 157, 165-69, 176, 206-07 and 220-23, and parts of paragraphs 35, 163, 208 and 219.3 After reviewing plaintiff's appeal, the ruling of the

magistrate judge, and the record in this case, the Court finds that for reasons set forth by the magistrate judge, which are adopted herein as this Court's opinion, the August 16, 2010, ruling is hereby AFFIRMED. The Court also warns the plaintiff that there is no need to be

1

Rec. Doc. No. 121. Rec. Doc. No. 116. Rec. Doc. No. 110.

2

3

Doc#46910

Dockets.Justia.com

disrespectful when filing a memorandum in this case. The plaintiff is advised that she should follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court when filing pleadings in this case. Furthermore, if plaintiff wishes to have a judicial A review of

officer recused, she should file a separate motion.

the record reveals that even if the Court considered plaintiff's objection as a motion to recuse, the Court would deny the motion. There is simply no basis in law or fact to recuse the magistrate judge in this case. Finally, while not pertinent to the issue on this appeal, the Court finds that the magistrate judge and this judge have timely ruled on all motions filed in this case. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 15, 2010.

S FRANK J. POLOZOLA

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Doc#46910

2