Gilmore et al v. Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control of the Louisiana Department of Revenue et al

Filing 122

OPINION Adopting 110 of the U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 07/05/2016. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES M. GILMORE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-00434-JWD-EWD
OFFICE OF ALCOHOL AND
TOBACCO CONTROL OF THE LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL.
OPINION

After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for reasons set forth in the
Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection was filed:
IT IS ORDERED that the Corrected Motion for Leave of Court to File the First Amended
Complaint, filed by plaintiffs Charles M. Gilmore, Daimian T. McDowell, and Larry J. Hingle, is
denied with prejudice. (See R. Doc. 54). After identifying several deficiencies in the original
Complaint, this Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint, which resulted in the
proposed First Amended Complaint that is now before the Court. Despite the opportunity to
amend, plaintiffs have again failed to allege particular facts to support their claims for
discrimination, retaliation, and failure to promote, and have advanced conclusory statements or the
same deficient arguments as before. Plaintiffs have also attempted to reassert claims that were
previously dismissed by this Court. The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs have already pled
their best case and granting additional leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.1
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 5, 2016.

S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

1 See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986) (‘‘At some point
a court must decide that a plaintiff has had fair opportunity to make his
case; if, after that time, a cause of action has not been established, the
court should finally dismiss the suit’’).