Cushenberry v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 139

RULING AND ORDER Adopting 137 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The 109 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The 122 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The 136 Opposition construed as a Cross-Motion for S ummary Judgment is DENIED. The Court shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's potential state law claims. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A final judgment shall issue in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Clerk of Court TERMINATE AS MOOT any remaining pending motions. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/19/2020. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LEONARDO CUSHENBERRY (#297345) CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL. NO.: 17-402-BAJ-EWB

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 137) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The Report and
Recommendation addresses three Motions for Summary Judgment. It recommends

that each of the two remaining Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs.
109 & 122) be granted. Plaintiff Leonardo Cushenberry, an inmate confined at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola appearing pro se, filed an Opposition (Doc.
136) to those Motions, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a cross-motion for

summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Motion be
denied. Finally, the Report and Recommendation addresses whether this Court is
entitled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law
claims.

The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant to 28
U.S.G. § 636(b)(l), 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. 137 at p. 1). Plaintiff filed an

Objection (Doc. 138). Plaintiff brings several challenges to the Report and
Recommendation, including that the Magistrate Judge exercised an abuse of
discretion and misapplied standards of review by ignoring specified facts concerning
physical suffering; that Plaintiffs failure to provide evidence of substantial harm is
actually Defendants fault; that Plaintiff refused medical treatment as a result of fear;
and that he lacks access to cases cited in the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 138
at p. 5-12). Upon review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately

applied the law, and specifically addressed cases with fact patterns that compare to
the injuries and facts alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint and serve to elaborate on the
controlling law.

Having carefully and independently considered the underlying Complaint, the
instant motions, and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 137) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Amanda Cowan's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jamie CasWs Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 122) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Opposition, construed as a
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 136) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs potential state law claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. A final judgment shall issue in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court TERMINATE AS
MOOT any remaining pending motions.

?3L

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this * day of February, 2020.

pJUDGE BRIAN^. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA