Hampton v. Cain et al

Filing 88

RULING and ORDER adopting 87 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Michael Hampton's 55 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Defendants' 40 Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, dismissing P laintiff's claims asserted against the Defendants, with prejudice. Plaintiff's 63 Motion for Preliminary/Preventive Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff's 78 Motion/Application for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. Plaintiff's 80 Motio n Requesting Preliminary Injunction and also a Restraining Order against Defendant(s) in Accordance with FRCP Rule 65(a),(b),(1),(3); and Also Title 18 Section 3626(a),(2); AD Testitificandum is DENIED. The above captioned matter is DISMISSED, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/21/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL HAMPTON (#334976)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
WARDEN BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO.: 13-00015-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER
On January 31, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that
Plaintiff Michael Hampton’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) be denied
and that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) be granted, dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims asserted against the Defendants, with prejudice; that Plaintiff’s
pending motions for injunctive relief and mandamus relief (Docs. 63, 78, and 80) be
denied and that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed; and that the Court decline
supplemental jurisdiction in connection with Plaintiff’s claims arising under state
law. (Doc. 87.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation specifically notified the
parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days from the
date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the
proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc.

87, at 1.) A review of the record indicates that neither party has filed an objection
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Having carefully considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the record, and
the applicable law, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
correct, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. 87) is
ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael Hampton’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is DENIED, and that the Defendants’ Rule
12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is GRANTED, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims
asserted against the Defendants, with prejudice.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Preliminary/Preventive Injunction (Doc. 63) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Writ
of Mandamus (Doc. 78) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting
Preliminary Injunction and also a Restraining Order against Defendant[s]
in Accordance with FRCP Rule 65 (a),(b),(1),(3); and Also Ti[t]le 18 Section
3626 (a),(2); AD Testificandum (sic) (Doc. 80) is DENIED.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matter is
DISMISSED, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 21st day of February, 2014.

_____________________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3