Carter et al v. Cain et al

Filing 94

RULING: The Defendant's 92] Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice. Any response to this Ruling, which should explain Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts deadlines, based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, shall be filed within 14 days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to the original Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/14/2020. (KMW)

Case 3:17-cv-00201-SDD-SDJ

Document 94

10/14/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IRMA JEAN CARTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

17-201-SDD-SDJ

N. BURL CAIN, et al.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment1 filed by
Defendants James LeBlanc, Burl Cain, Darryl Vannoy, and Leslie Dupont (collectively,
“Defendants”). Local rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda
in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion.
Despite this rule, Plaintiff Irma Jean Carter (“Carter”) failed to timely oppose this motion,
which was electronically filed on August 21, 2020. Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of Court, Plaintiff was required to file an opposition no
later than September 11, 2020. At no time did Plaintiff request an extension of time to
oppose this motion.
Therefore, the pending motion is deemed to be unopposed and further, after
reviewing the record, the Court finds that the Motion has merit, particularly because
Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts2 is uncontroverted, and the summary
judgment evidence submitted supports Defendants’ arguments. Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment3 is GRANTED,

1

Rec. Doc. No. 92.
2
Rec. Doc. No. 92-2.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 92.

62615 
Page 1 of 2 

Case 3:17-cv-00201-SDD-SDJ

Document 94

10/14/20 Page 2 of 2

and this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice.
Any response to this Ruling, which should explain Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the Court’s deadlines, based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, shall be
filed within fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum
to the original Motion. Counsel for Plaintiff is cautioned that the Fifth Circuit has routinely
concluded that calendaring errors do not constitute “excusable neglect” under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).4
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2020.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4

See, e.g., Buckmire v. Mem'l Hermann Healthcare Sys. Inc., 456 Fed.Appx. 431, 432 (5th Cir. 2012)
(affirming the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion where the lawyer “forgot to ‘calendar’ the
deadline for a response”); cf. Brittingham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 543 Fed.Appx. 372, 374 (5th Cir. 2013)
(“We have previously held that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a Rule 60(b)(1)
motion where the proffered justification for relief is the careless mistake of counsel.”). 

62615 
Page 2 of 2